[jolly]

It came to my attention recently that many in the church etc dont care about global warming, or damage to the planet because as they see it, in the end, the world will be destroyed and replaced by a new one! So not only do many not stand against it(global warming etc) some actively encourage it!

Right, well I dont know about the rest of you but, I think that is utterly stupid!

This belife comes from the book Revelations 21.1 ´Then I saw a new heaven and earth...´

In the normal introduction to the book of Revelation it states very clearly: ´The book is made up of two different ´apocalypses´ written at different times and later conflated..... the language in which the vision is decribed is richly symbolic and so allusive that the message can be interpreted in more ways than one.´

So why these people have decided that the earth will be destroyed, you have question; afterall they could be wrong and have mis-interpreted it!

It says in Genesis after the flood 9.17- "God said to Noah, ´this is the sign of the covenant I have established between myself and every living thing that is found on the earth´."

Therefore Gods covenant includes all the animals, we are currently wiping out. The rainbow is a symbol of the pledge that God would not destroy life on earth again!

Some I believe, think that letting the world go down the toilet helps the kindom of God come into being: They seem to me to be very impatient, but also sitting back and ignoring climate change because they think its a good thing, is to my mind hardly an aproprate response.

So if/when they should ever meet God or Jesus, And say ´Oh I diddnt do anything to stop them from destroying the planet, coz I thought I was help you out´ I wonder weather Jesus would say ´good job´ or somthing abit more along the lines of ´well, if you didnt look after the Earth, what you gonna be like in heaven?´

Funny one of the Monks was telling me that, Hitler took the name ´third reich´ From revelations to, The thrid reign, Clearly Hitler thought he was Jesus or somthing and that his mission was to bring into being in a new era: It is quite clear that if hitler worked for anyone it was Satan- and the politics of hate!   

[dentstudent]

Funny one of the Monks was telling me that, Hitler took the name ´third reich´ From revelations to, The thrid reign, Clearly Hitler thought he was Jesus or somthing and that his mission was to bring into being in a new era: It is quite clear that if hitler worked for anyone it was Satan- and the politics of hate!   

Just for clarification: The Nazi Party used the terms Drittes Reich (Third Empire) and Tausendjähriges Reich ("Thousand-Year Realm/Empire") to describe the greater German ethnic empire they wished to forge. The term Third Reich referred to the Nazi recognition of former incarnations of important German realms, the first being the Holy Roman Empire and the second being the German Empire) while alluding to envisioned future prosperity and the new nation's alleged destiny. The Holy Roman Empire, deemed the First Realm or First Reich of the German people, had lasted almost a thousand years from 843 to 1806. The term Tausendjähriges Reich was used only briefly and dropped from propaganda in 1939, officially to avoid mockery and possibly to even avoid religious connotations. In speeches, books and articles about the Third Reich after 8 May 1945, the phrase has taken on a new meaning and the early Nazi professions about a "thousand year" empire are often juxtaposed against the twelve years that the Third Reich actually existed.

Also: Hitler advocated a "Positive Christianity", a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and which reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews. It's almost certain that he believed in Christ, but it's highly unlikely that he thought himself to be Jesus.

[jolly]

Funny one of the Monks was telling me that, Hitler took the name ´third reich´ From revelations to, The thrid reign, Clearly Hitler thought he was Jesus or somthing and that his mission was to bring into being in a new era: It is quite clear that if hitler worked for anyone it was Satan- and the politics of hate!   

Just for clarification: The Nazi Party used the terms Drittes Reich (Third Empire) and Tausendjähriges Reich ("Thousand-Year Realm/Empire") to describe the greater German ethnic empire they wished to forge. The term Third Reich referred to the Nazi recognition of former incarnations of important German realms, the first being the Holy Roman Empire and the second being the German Empire) while alluding to envisioned future prosperity and the new nation's alleged destiny. The Holy Roman Empire, deemed the First Realm or First Reich of the German people, had lasted almost a thousand years from 843 to 1806. The term Tausendjähriges Reich was used only briefly and dropped from propaganda in 1939, officially to avoid mockery and possibly to even avoid religious connotations. In speeches, books and articles about the Third Reich after 8 May 1945, the phrase has taken on a new meaning and the early Nazi professions about a "thousand year" empire are often juxtaposed against the twelve years that the Third Reich actually existed.

Also: Hitler advocated a "Positive Christianity", a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and which reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews. It's almost certain that he believed in Christ, but it's highly unlikely that he thought himself to be Jesus.

Hey that came from a monk I just repeated it, But The third reich/reign or empire, is relevent to revelations-

Hitler claimed he was a christian(though his actions are anything but christian), he dreamt of creating a new world, and used the name ´third reich´, which is the last kindom of God in the book of revelations- the one that never dies! Well you add, new world, thrid reich, and hitler leading the fight to achieve it, if nothing else he must of thought of himself as some sort of prophet!

Funny one of the priests was also telling me that Hitler used to have visions or messages that told him where the allies were going to attack etc "and they often came true" he said, and then he said "But towards the end of the war he went mad and started making lots of mistakes".

You can believe what ever you want to, but for Hitler to have acted as he did, he must of in some way have seen himself as a prophet! I think he was nuts, but then all fascists are nuts in my opinion; Sorry, EVIL and NUTS!!!!!

[jolly]

As a continuation of the world needs protection from religious nutters- Hitler is an example to me of a religious nutter!

[Bored chemist]

Theres still a debate about whether or not Hitler was an atheist. Personally, I don't care- he was a nutter anyway so how could it matter?
Anyway, I think that the world needs protection from nuts in general. It seems that religion gives you an excuse to  ignore evidence and so it tends to get associated with some of the more absurd ideas. Stalin was a clearly (well fairly clearly) atheist nutter and the world would have been better off without him.
Both Hitler's and Stalin's  "teachings" didn't stand up to thorough scrutiny but they got away with it anyway. The fact that the people they fooled were used to accepting ideas from authority (like the Church) that didn't stand up may well have helped Hitler and Stalin rise to power. The people simply were not used to asking questions. I think religion probably played a part in that.

(oh look! I seem to be broadly agreeing with Jolly- that doesn't happen often)

[Batroost]

Fram an aethiest standpoint I see the same problems that Jolly does. An example I saw recently was an American fundamentalist Christian organisation that was funding a radical Jewish organisation who were trying to take teh Temple Mount back from the Muslims. The American's were happy to admit that there only interest was in trying to start a war, which they predicted the Jews woud win, because this was a necessary step to the second coming of Christ!

Can anyone see how this sort of behaviour can possibly be considered moral?

And yes, I'm agreeing with Jolly too! []

[Bored chemist]

"Can anyone see how this sort of behaviour can possibly be considered moral?"
Yes,I can. If you beleive that it God's will then of course it is moral.
Is it possible to think that it is God's will to kill huge numbers of people?
Yes, of course it is- He did it Himself, ask Noah.

Of course, if you have been taught to think for yourself then you will see straight through this, the trouble is that a lot of folk in this world are led up a pathway that I consider delusional. They are taught to have faith rather than to test and also to believe things that don't make a lot of sense.
In short they are taught Religion (and it really doesn't matter much which one).

[jolly]

Fram an aethiest standpoint I see the same problems that Jolly does. An example I saw recently was an American fundamentalist Christian organisation that was funding a radical Jewish organisation who were trying to take teh Temple Mount back from the Muslims. The American's were happy to admit that there only interest was in trying to start a war, which they predicted the Jews woud win, because this was a necessary step to the second coming of Christ!

Can anyone see how this sort of behaviour can possibly be considered moral?

And yes, I'm agreeing with Jolly too! []

Yeah I have to say it is utterly immoral, who is anyone, to state they know God will? Let alone have the right carry it out!

Surely for religious people, if they believe that the stories of the end of time etc are true, they must know that, they will happen as God intends them to.
To try and force the things they believe will happen to happen is to rush Gods hand surely, and who are they to act in that way? 
How can they be so sure that their interpretation is so correct?

One of the monks here was telling me that there was a monk long since past away, who was obsessed about the end time, and every time he got a new prediction about when the end was comming he would run about telling everyone.
Then when the end never came, he would say "It´s because I prayed, God stopped it!". Atleast the other monks saw it for what it was.

The thing I dont get there is, surely he was praying for it to happen? 

Jesus says quite clearly: Not even I know when the end will be, only god does. So how these religious nuts run around starting wars, to bring about the end I do not know.

As I said before about Revelations: ´The book is made up of two different ´apocalypses´ written at different times and later conflated..... the language in which the vision is decribed is richly symbolic and so allusive that the message can be interpreted in more ways than one.´

So yeah again when god asks these nutters ´Why did you start the war? and break lots of the rules I and Jesus asked you to keep´
They can say ´We did what we thought you wanted´ and again I dont know if God would say ´well done´ or ´how is that? thou shall not kill, have you forgotton?´

I´m surely thou shall not kill also includes incouraging others to kill. How can any moral person take pleasure in warfare? 

[Titanscape]

The story of Noah is good in that both the idea there was a flood and that there was as Noah and family and God and warlords... is all equally hard to believe from a science standpoint.

So if you believe any of it, such as all drowning but for one family, then you also must believe the reason and cause... and that it really was moral.

But authoritarian US Bible believers are free and make mistakes. There is room on the temple mount for another building, a church if the Muslims accept it. God bless them.

The crusades and contemporary Bible adherents are not always out for the right thing, and it concerns me as they use up our name,"Christian".

There should be a "does it check with the Bible" authority. At least to keep it clear that Jesus was loving and sincere.

[Bored chemist]

The first thing you should send to the "does it check with the bible" authority is the bible.
It diasgrees with itself quite often enough to prove that it's not the word of God.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#stalls_and_horsemen

[Batroost]

The story of Noah is good in that both the idea there was a flood and that there was as Noah and family and God and warlords... is all equally hard to believe from a science standpoint.

The version of the flood in the (much older) mesopotamian 'Gilgamesh' stories is much more fun. The Gods send the flood to kill all the people, not because they are corrupt or evil but simply because they are making too much noise!

(Honest - look it up).

[eric l]

The version of the flood in the (much older) mesopotamian 'Gilgamesh' stories is much more fun. The Gods send the flood to kill all the people, not because they are corrupt or evil but simply because they are making too much noise!

Praying too loudly ?  Singing hymns out of tune ?

[Titanscape]

Bored chemist, there are so many students of and Bible scholar writers, here are three sites with answers specifically for hundreds of alleged Bible contradictions.

www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b08ac.html

http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_8.htm

I know atheists arefine sorts sometimes, but thye Bible isn't a new study.

[Bored chemist]

I don't care how many people study it or for how long they have done so. If it's got errors or contradictions in it then it's very difficult to pass it off as the word of a perfect God.

[Titanscape]

What are some of the main contradictions Bored Chemist? What is the heart and liver here?

[jolly]

I think the problem for many is that alot of the ´book´ is acutally metaphore for somthing else, they therefore see contractions where there are none, or believe the world is gonna blow up and so have to help it happen.

[Bored chemist]

"What are some of the main contradictions Bored Chemist?"
Did you look at the site I rerfered to?

[Titanscape]

Yes, but there are hundreds of the alleged contradictions, such as the stalls and horesman. The answer is included. There are hundreds of assertions and explanations.

[Bored chemist]

OK, since you mention it, here's a qupote from that site
 "How many stalls and horsemen?
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem."

The bible says that there were 40,000 and that there were 4000.
Only one of these can have been right and so there's a contradiction. At most one of those can be the work of a perfect God, but they are both in the bible.

As you say, there are scores of others but 1 is quite enough to prove that the Bible is imperfect and, therefore, not the Word of a pefect God. Either He's not perfect, or the Bible isn't His word.

As you say, that site also gives the "explanations" but there aren't that many; here's the list.


"Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:
1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?

4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said."
 
Did you notice that it was poining out that these "explanations" don't work?

[Hadrian]

are they not just another type of nutter?