I'm kinda curious on everyone's opinion on this. As a Christian I believe it's going to happen although I DON'T KNOW WHEN!!! I could see already that's question people were gonna have. The Bible says "No man knows the day nor the hour". And anyone who's grown up in the church has already heard that argument. But also, anyone who's read at least one of the "Left Behind" books has perhaps learned a little more about it than that. Anyway, it's not the Rapture part I want to focus on (although that's important too). It was the Tribulation part, what happens after all us born-again believers in Jesus Christ are Raptured. Once again if you've read or heard a little about "Left Behind" you know the Tribulation is a 7-yr. period of complete turmoil, chaos and confusion with a one-world government, single dictator and a bunch of other demented things. The problem: most of it comes from... GOD!! "How can such a loving God be so cruel?", you ask? ( If I offend anyone with this topic, I deeply and sincerely apologize.)

I'm so lost Jer, what exactly are you asking?

Wowzers mcbowzers that's a deep topic... I think that what the Bible says and what the church says the Bible says tend to be two completely different things. I think that the church tends to manipulate everything in the Bible so that it best suits their agenda, and this is definitely no exception. I think that they are using it to scare people into going to church. I think the churches were basically created as a way for people to get money and power from religion, which I don't think is what God wants at all. But then again, that's just what I think, so who knows? I'm still not sure why the Big Man would want to destroy something that's he has cared for for so long, but then again, I guess farmers kill off cows after they raise them. Anyway, that's just my two-cents, who knows what they're worth in American money.

No, Ryan. What you're saying makes total sense to me. For you, Ash, the question is whether you believe the Rapture and Tribulation are going to happen or whether or not it's just a scare tactic cooked up by the church. Now Ryan makes a very good point: the church is very good at manipulating the Bible to fit their own presonal needs. However this has nothing to do with that. One of the underlying questions you have to ask yourself is do you believe in prophecy. Not that fake hocus-pocus, Ms.Cleo, Nostradaumus, crystal ball crap. That's all fake. I'm talking about Bible prophecy that's always 100% accurate.

This is almost like being back in the lounge at Mark Twain with you guys... ;)

The way that I understand the Tribulation times was that God was not destroying what he created but instead cleaning up the mess that man had made so as to purify the Earth of man's evil. (Yes, I think that man is naturally evil since the time of Adam and Eve and orginal sin)

On the manipulating done by the Church, its is the men that make up the church that are doing the actual manipulating and are calling it the "church's work." They only true and honest Church was the one created by God with Peter but even it today has "dissappeared." The churchs play a popularity game with each other and the true church was voted off as the weakest link hundreds of years ago by man.

("man" and "men" refer to humans in general...just in case someone says I'm pickin' on males and that females are evil too. ;) )

How can you say the Bible's 100% accurate? Not everything that they've said in there has come true, and really there's no way of knowing if they will come true until when and if they happen, so really you could just say "yeah, it'll happen sometime down the road" for all eternity, or until the end of the world. The Bible's prophecies seem to be a little ambiguous. Take Matthew 24:14 for example: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." This would have been a pretty good prediction about the gospel being spread, but why did they throw that thing about the end of the world in there? I think it was thrown in there as a safeguard. If it does spread, the prediction is right, but if it doesn't spread, then hey, it's not the end of the world yet, it could still come true. And when the world does end, who will be around to say it was wrong?

I don't think that people are naturally evil, but that we unconsciously (and sometimes consciously) choose to be good or evil anytime we do something. Why would God make something whose nature is to be evil? I can see why people would tend to think that humans are naturally evil, what with how screwed up the world is, but you have to remember that people are basically like lemmings, so if one person decides to do something bad, everyone else is going to jump on the band wagon. I think that the church shouldn't have hitched a ride on the wagon, and instead tried to set their own trend. The church is still trying to stay on the bandwagon nowadays too, with these contemporary services and things so they can try to fit with the crowd. Sure, they're trying to bring more people in, but are the people bringing them down instead?

First I'll note that I'm a secularist (like an atheist, but smarter and better looking... well, maybe not that, but it's still more accurate) in all things philsophy. Therefore I don't believe in God, heaven, hell, tribulation, Zeus, Allah, or etc., but that doesn't mean I can't learn about them. Let it also be said that I have no problem with those who practice their own religion. Secondly (or is this thirdly already?) , I'll remind everyone that like the abortion "debate", getting into religion is treading on thin ice... Keep in mind that the likelihood of convincing someone that their faith/ belief is slim to none.
I personally find the whole idea of the "Original Sin" insulting, unless you take it as a metaphor that an infant's mind is a blank slate, untouched by either good or evil. But implying that every human born is a sinful little beast is crazy, to me, and leads to a whole mess of contradictions once you develop the philosophy behind the idea (and leads to such wonderful things as dictatorship and racism... more on that another day). Good and evil are both human institutions. If there were no humans (or some other rational being) on earth, earth would be neither good nor evil; it would just be. Humans (more specifically human life) are the standard upon which good and evil is judged. That which is beneficial and supportive to human life is the good; that which is detrimental to human life is the evil (This isn't moral relativism, BTW... it's objectivist metaphysics/ epistemology/ ethics in a nutshell... I may have to expand on the ideas later).
Back to the original post: Religion, to me, is cool to learn about and study in that it's an early form of human philosophy. The story of rapture and tribulation/ apocolypse is around in many religions through the world, and I think they share that trait because it rounds out the religion... People want to be rewarded for their life of serving the religion, and see those who didn't punished. Justice, let's call it. I'll agree with the points made that the various churches have used the threats of hell, heaven, rapture, and tribulation to influence people. It's not easy educating the masses about objective reality and morality to get people to act in a civilized way, but if the masses believe a higher power is going to cause them bodily (or spiritual-ly) harm if they don't act morally, they're going to listen to their self-preservation instinct and follow what the higher being. That's how churches became early governments (and still are, in a couple Muslim nations)... It's pragmatic, but it works relatively well (That doesn't justify it, but it does achieve the goal of getting people to act civilized-ly).
I don't believe in prophecy, either... I'm sure there's anecdotal evidence to support someone (or something, like the Bible, the Koran, Back To The Future III, etc...) making a prediction correctly, but I'm going to refrain believing in the supernatural until it can be demonstrated. Nostradamus, the Torah/ Bible Code, Miss Cleo, and the rest have been debunked over and over. And those who are up on their quantum field theory know that reality is anything but deterministic (Einstein is considered in many circles to be the last great "classical" physicist, in that he believed in determinism), so long term prophecy is out.
Last thing: I work in a library, so I know that the Left Behind series is pretty popular. I've read a little bit of a couple of them, and all the back covers when entering them into the computer (They're published by Tyndale... working in a library is scary; I can go into a bookstore and recognize some authors, titles, and publishers from book covers... ISBN numbers, sometimes, too). One lady told me her church in town has told its congregation not to read them, as they're "inaccurate and deceptive", but they remain pretty popular. I may disagree with Tim LaHaye and the other guy (Jenkins?), but if their books get people thinking and talking about important things like philosophy, good for them.

First off, I don't think this topic is meant to change any one's faith, although if it does, yay. Also, I disagree with not being able to change someone's view on religion and God. I'm not saying that they would change solely on something someone said, but it could very well be the nudge that makes them change, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. I know I swapped religions like I was playing Go Fish with them for a while until I found something that seemed reasonable. I was Catholic, then Methodist, then deist, then atheist, then back to deist, and now I don't know what I could classify myself as other than I'm just me, and it seems to fit (by the way, at least one of those changes was during MSA). And I'd have to say that things people said did have some influence on my view of religion, although not as much as events that were happening in my life. People do play a factor, though, and that goes back to the whole bandwagon thing.

Regarding what Ryan said earlier, namely, "Why would God make something whose nature it was to be evil?" (paraphrasing, I am), from what I gather in all I've read, God didn't create man to be evil, but man fell because of some combination of temptation, Adam, and Eve, not necessarily in that order. So the party line is that God didn't intend for humans to be this way, but somewhere early on things got screwed up.

Heh, speaking of changing religious ideas at MSA, yeah, I can attest to that - I was attempting to find Christian faith the spring before MSA, and once I got there, experiences I had led me to become agnostic yet again...so since MSA, I've been agnostic, and only just as of the past semester or so have I begun to investigate Christianity yet again, largely due to the fact that my boyfriend, another '00 Scholar, Jay Gengelbach, happens to be Christian/conservative...some may lament the fact that I, another politically independent agnostic, am (possibly?) being won over to the more conservative side politically (though I maintain that I'm still independent...I'm just a conservative sympathizer in many ways, which is probably due, in part, to my reaction to being here at this bastion of liberalism, Washington University...) not to mention the Christian side of things (is that really a side...eh, prolly not) ...I don't think it's really something to lament. Y'find things however you're meant to find 'em, and if this is part of some higher purpose, then hey, that's great...

Anyway, enough about me. I'm up right now, at 2:40 AM on, 'cause I'm studying for, of all things, my Christianity midterm. Yay...!

-Margaret-

The only way that you could say the Bible was 100% correct was for God to come down and hand us a version written by His own hand. This goes back to man's tendency to screw things things up, not to mention that several translations came from monks that were probably writting in the middle of the night..(I know anything I write in the wee hours never makes sense.)

I've never had much contact with any other religion other than my own and then the summer's spent at my grandfather's church so my views are based mostly on the smorgasbord of Catholicism.

Got to do something for Mrs Hag(er) so I'll finish my thoughts at another time.

To Ash: You're 100% correct. As a matter of fact, my friend and I had a discussion about this yesterday. I printed this topic out because I wanted my Christian friends' opinions on Bo's post fom a few days ago (to which I will reply in a few moments). What I'm talking about being 100% accurate is Bible prophecy!!! THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT I DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!! What I'm talking about always being accurate is the prophecies in the Bible itself. There were well over 100 prophecies that had to be fulfilled and Jesus filled every one. He was the only one who could. What I'm sayin is that this is prophecy were talking about and on that note, I will respond to Bo's post:

First: Stop calling Christianity "religion". You may as well put organized in front of that. Christianity is not a religion; it's a way of life. If I sound mean with that, I apologize but it makes me angry when someone throws Christainity in with "orgaized religion". Second: There are some points I agree with you on and some where we differ greatly. I don't have time to go through them one-by-one, but I'll highlight those I can in my limited time space: As far as Original Sin, you've got your story just a bit skewered. The Original Sin does not imply that every child ever born is an evil little monster; it just means they are spiritually seperated from God. When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden, they cused the rest of us forever. It was like opening a Pandora's Box of sin and unleashing it on all their descendants and the only thing they clamped the lid on was salvation. I have to finish this later but I want to leave you with this Bo: A smart man believes in what he can touch, see and prove; an intelligent man believes in what he cannot.

Continuing what I was talking about earlier: The Rapture and Tribulation have nothing to do with "people want[ing] to be rewarded for their life of service" to Christianity. That is a reward, but to a Christian, the reward comes while here on Earth. The main focus of being a Christian is winning others to Christ. All the other stuff is just an added bonus. The Tribulation is not an act of justice; it's the final act of convincing by a loving God. Let me explain: Our parents punish us because they love us when we do something they know will be detrimental to our future. It doesn't seem like it at the time, but that's what it is. The Tribulation is almost the same thing. It's like God's saying: "Okay: I sent my only Son to die for you, I send my people throught the Earth to try and get you to come to me, but you still don't believe I exsist. So, as a final act of convincing I'm going to bring destruction and plagues and troubles on the planet I created, on the people I created and love to prove to you that I exsist. And if this still doesn't convince you after suffering seven years of this and having people still talking to you about me, you will be seperated from me forever." You're probably thinking "That doesn't make sense. If he loves us so much, why would he destroy us and the planet?" I don't know. If you ask any pastor that selfsame question they can only give you the best answer they can. BTW, I'm going to ask my pastor that on Sunday. I GTG now, but I'm not finished with this yet. More later.

Most Christians I know do absolutely nothing to "win" people over to Christ, but are Christians either because that's what their parents were/are or because they want to go to heaven. And are you saying that I don't have to follow God until the Tribulation comes along and I'll be able to get into heaven? That just doesn't make much sense to me. And I'm still sticking by the prophecies in the Bible not necessarily being 100% accurate because not all of them have happened yet, and you don't really know if they will. Christianity may be a way of life, but it is technically a religion because it is a belief in a set of teachings and moral values that come from a spiritual leader. And yes, it is organized, thus making it an organized religion.

Oh, and my parents punish me because society says that they should, not because I did something that would be detrimental to my future, becuase in most cases, what I did has no effect on my future :D .

this may not be entirely on topic, but i have a question. after much debate between myself and..well..myself, I think that how this question is answered will basically determine whether or not i have any faith in a god or a religion.

so, did God create man, or did man create God?

This question depends entirely on whom you are asking. Myself and any other Christian you may ask (or any member of most organized religions, for that matter) will tell you unequivocally that God created man in his image. The Bible very clearly states that this is so from Genesis onwards. As the most powerful being in existence, God created man for fellowship, placing him a little lower than the angels.

Historians etc. that do not subscribe to a religion, however, need some way to account for religion's prominent place in all society. Therefore they theorize that man needed some way to account for his existence before there was science and thus created a God in his own mind.

God is God, though. He says in Ezekiel [paraphrased], "What if some did not believe? Does that make God a liar? No! Only God is always true." So belief in God does not affect whether or not he exists. If one does not believe in God, they cannot make him vanish in a poof of logic. Even if Babel fish do exist :P.

*Seth sits back and waits for flames, realizing that this will probably quickly degenerate into a rant thread.

Historians just think the human race made up a universal imaginary friend. ;) But there are several parallels between God and imaginary friends. Both God and my imaginary friend, Mamma Ghost, are/were my comfort. (Mamma Ghost had to go back to her own kids :r) Everyone always thought I was crazy for talking to something that I couldn't prove existed, and can anyone prove with touchable evidence that either one ever did? There is a big difference though between the two, Mamma Ghost never could do anything but listen when I had a problem but God could always do something. I'm not talking about solving the problems. If I had it my way, churches would not exist. Instead of Sunday service everyone would have a patch of nature to be alone in. That’s how you know that there is God out there- this world is too perfect to be a accident. I think you can get more out of that quiet time than any sermon that any preacher is going to preach to you. As crazy as it sounds, I think that when the wind blows and circles around you that its really God giving you a hug, cause anytime I'm upset or even really happy and I took my quiet time the wind would blow and it brought comfort and peace with it.

Jeremy - I understand the distinction you're trying to make between Christianity as a religion and Christianity as a "way of life", but that same distinction can be made for pretty much every other religion as well... Muslims would consider living under Islamic doctrine and living for Allah a way of life. Zoroastrianists would do the same in living for Ahura Mazda (Not the God of Miatas, the Zoroastrianist deity!) just like those who practice Transcendental Meditation consider that practice a way of life (I wonder if the Maharishi is a really flexible spiritual leader... he ought to be, with all that yoga).
In actuality, if you use the teachings of whichever religion or faith or whatever as a way, it's a PHILOSOPHY... A philosophy is your strategy for life; it guides your actions, emotions, and everything. My philosophy is available in my book... which is... well, not available. I have to write it first. In my post, I pointed out that I think religions are interesting... they're forms of philosophy. Which I think people should take the time to develop (Plus I like saying five syllable words like "metaphysics". And "epistemology". (Quiet, I know that that's...*counts*...seven)). If you don't like your way of life being categorized with others as religion, substitute "philosophy" for "religion" when you read... it's usually used in the same sense, and isn't meant to offend.
As for the tribulation, as it's been said earlier here, different people (and churches) have interpreted it differently. Same with the "Original Sin". You can explain it your way, but it still basically regards every human guilty of SOMEthing as a result of a genetic ancestor, which I disagree with totally. That line of thinking also sets up impossible ideals, in addition to racism, xenophobia, totalitarianism, and other kinda bad institutions ("Kinda bad" in the sense that the surface of the sun is "kinda warm".) My explanations of the stories of Tribulation and the Original Sin ("little monster") were of course not-very-good ones; I intended them to be a quick, ham-fisted, somewhat facetious interpretations. I still stand by my characterization of the ideas of Tribulation, Purgatory, Heaven, Hell, Eternal damnation, and Hades as early forms of justice.

Uh, thanks for leaving me with the saying, I think. Have you really thought about it? Aside from it lacking parallel sentence construction (Sorry, too much Language Arts homework), it strikes me as a rather meaningless bromide (also a good word...) meant to end argument by asserting something that doesn't really say anything. Usually said with an air of righteous and a wise nod that's impossible to counter without looking like a jerk. You know the kind. But let's examine it... What's the difference between "smart" and "intelligent"? I can see "wise" being used in place of the latter, but when "smart" and "intelligent" are used, it comes out sounding like "A dumb person goes to the large grocery store. A stupid person goes to the supermarket". I guess it sort of makes a point if you remove the word "prove" from it. That way it implies that you don't have to physically see or understand every known phenomenon in the universe to believe it. Which is correct. I don't understand all the math behind relativistic quantum field theory or whatever, but I accept it as fact/ "believe" that it's valid (the mathematical relations, at least. It's still a theory in progress). But with "prove" there, interpreting liberally, you can use that saying to justify believing in Miss Cleo, Nostradamus, and etc. as "intelligent". But, proof is REQUIRED to "believe" something. If you'd never heard of the Bible, would you "believe" in God? (That's a rhetorical question... I'm going to answer for you:) No, you wouldn't. But, since you have been exposed to the Bible, you do have reason to believe in God. The Bible constitutes your proof. Along the same lines, I would never have any reason to believe that George Washington was the first President (under the Constitution, of course. The Articles of Confederation had 6 or 7 presidents before G.W.) if I'd never been exposed to historical books/ people telling me that he was the first President. But, the various books and people and teachers and quiz bowl practice with those little flash cards with bad illustrations of the Presidents on them have provided me with proof supporting the idea that, Yes, In fact, George Washington was the first president!.

So which are you? Smart or intelligent?

Seth - Esta linha esperançosamente não degenerate em uma série dos rants. (Babelfish THAT! B) )

Ashley - Right on. I like your idea (and reasons) for church-free-ness. I disagree with parts, but I think you're right that people would get more out of individually developing their philosophy/ experiencing God than they would out of a sermon. :D

well, since it looks like this board does not yet have a resident crackhead...

Man created the ghods, all of them that have ever existed. Not like "hmm, what shall we do today? Oh, I think I'll invent a ghod and create a religion!" No, like really creating. Our belief in whatever ghod causes the ghod to exist, and whatever we believe of them comes with them. Jehovah did not exist until the Hebrew elders began preaching about him/it. As soon as they did that, and their people began to listen to them, Jehovah existed. He/it could perform miracles, affect the physical world, redeem souls, everything, and the reason that he/it could do this is that the Jews believed that he could. Even today, we create our own reality...And the reason that people belive in the same ghods as our ancestors is because of religions and their sacred writings. If we didn't have those, then people would either deal with life without ghods, thus uncreating them, or create new ones, and the old ghods would die.
Seth, I think that you are missing something in the relationship between proof and belief...Of course one has to have "proof", but what that proof is varies from one person to another...If what Jeremy perceived as proof was the same thing that you perceived as proof, then you two would believe the same thing...And I'm sure that you have some proof of the correctness of secularity, even if you don't call it that. However, the reason that someone cannot believe in Jehovah/Christ/Allah/Pan/Odin without exposure to the sacred writings is not a question of "proof", but simply of exposure. Let us take an example. I mention an idea from, say, Plato to someone who has not read the Republic. They cannot believe this idea, because they have never considered it, have never thought that society should be ruled by philosopher-kings. Then, based on what I said, they go out and read the Republic. They now are able to believe this idea, having been exposed to it, but this exposure is not proof. Simply reading the idea is not enough for belief. The person must consider it, and acquire whatever "proof" they need before they can believe it. Similarly, I doubt you will find anyone who is a Christian truly only because of the Bible. The Bible is a big thing, yes, but I doubt anyone would become Christian solely on reading the Bible, and nothing else...And I've run out of words to explain this idea...I might come back later...
And on the lack-of-church-ness: Religion is, almost by definition, about the relationship between a person and their ghod. Worship, by involving other people, become less about religion (the relationship with ghod) than about society (the relationship with other humans). I would be lax if I neglected to mention that organized religions have, more often than not, a wonderful effect on how people view their relationships with other humans, but that effect is due to the social aspect of religion, not the spiritual. The spiritual aspect of religion comes onlyfrom two sources: you, and ghod.

You're right - exposure to "proof" of religion or the lack thereof is far from objective. I meant that, say, Jeremy and I, have different standards for what "proof" is. I've been exposed to (some of) the same things he has (including the Bible, people teaching about the Bible and experiences that confirm the existence or non-existence of religion to him - I didn't mean to imply that the Bible was the only source) would , but I'm obviously not in complete agreement with him. In an objective sense, either one or both of us is wrong.

I know this is a bit far down, but I want to respond to Ryan's last post: You could wait until after the Tribulation started to "follow God" as you call it, but that would be a very bad idea simply because if you waited that long you'd be stuck on Earth the entire seven year period and there's no guarantee that you'd live to see the end. In addition to the leader of the one-world leader hunting down every Christian he/she can get their hands on, there are a lot of other natural disasters that plauge the Earth and you could die in any one of them. The reason the Bible predicts so many converts to Christianity at that point and time is because peoples' belief system will be completely messed up. This is/will be the only thing that guarantees you even a modicum of protection because God won't send his judgements on his own people. Just those who don't believe.

Hmmm.... A lifetime of someone else telling me how to live or 7 years of hiding... I think I'd take the 7 years.

WHY?!?!!? It's not a lifetime of someone telling you what to do. Yes, the Bible does ask us to go to church but that doesn't mean you have to do what you're told. I know it sounds like I'm rationalizing to expand the kingdom of Christ, but it's true. You don't have to do everything any pastor says to be a Christian. The pastor is there to present you with the information; it's up to you whether or not you plan on following it. It all ties into that old saying "You can lead a horse to warter but you can't make him drink." The pastor of the church can lead you to the knowledge of the truth, but that doesn't mean you accept it. And anyway, that isn't what makes you a Christian. Believing that Jesus Christ not only died for you but to erase your past sins, that before Him you were a sinner, lost from God and that with him in your life... okay. Let me explain it this way (this is what I believe, I'm not trying to force it on anyone else): God created man in His image and gave him dominion over the Earth. He created everything (your creation and "Original Sin" story, Bo) including Adam and Eve. God loves us, but hates sin and so we were separated from him. 2000 years after he kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden (I see you shaking your head at this Bo, bear with me. My ramblings have a point.) He sent his only son Jesus to die for us. Up until that point any kind of sacrafice to God had to be blood. Nothing less(Cain and Able). Jesus, by shedding His blood, was the ultimate sacrifice. He died so we wouldn't have to. God sent his perfect Son to die so we wouldn't have to. It's like you catching a bullet for Ash and dying so she won't have to. What's my point? It's this: God "calls" pastors and teachers and evagelists, etc. to "feed [his] sheep". They put the food in front of you, but you don't have to eat it. And at some point, it'd be impossible to hide. The leader of the one-world government would flush out anyone that didn't accept him/her as "God". So your plan has flaws either way.

So you're saying that I don't have to do what the Bible tells me to do? It's all just a suggestion? All I have to do is believe that there was a Jesus Christ and he did die for my sins and everything will be hunky-dory? I can say screw the commandments, who cares about prayer or worship, I don't want to help others, I don't want to be Mr. Nice, and I'll still get into heaven? Now there's a heck of a deal...

Yeah go ahead, but by the beliefs of Catholicism you'll be spending tons of time in Purgatory. :P By believing in Jesus your supposedly going to want to be more like him and not "sin"....

Good thing I'm not Catholic :D . I don't think I would spend any more time in purgatory (although don't most Christians think that time doesn't flow in the afterlife like it does here or something along those lines? I think they even had a name for it, aevi something or another???), it would probably just hurt worse. Which then goes back to the question of why would God want to bring us pain?

(Just looked the time thing up- it's called aeviternity)

It's not that he necessarily wants to bring the world pain and suffering any more than a man who has just built a house would want to tear it down. The judgements he sends are his way of reaching out to the last faction of mankind that simply refuses to believe. It's his last resort; it says if this doesn't get your attention and make you believe, nothing will. Make sense? :huh:

You are talking about a last chance to believe in God when he starts his judgements but there will be many chances to "give in" to God. Don't attack me for give in i can't think of the right words.

The bible also talks about people whose hearts will be hardened to the word of God, even if they want to believe they still want more proof.

Also about the left behind books: I think they are great but they are cristian FICTION! the bible doesn't even say that the rapture will be at the begining of the tribulation. It could happen in the middle or even at the end of the seven years.

If you want to read about religion as a function of society(which is not boring like it sounds) check out Emile Durkheim book. sorry i can't remember the title :/

Everyone is talking about what Christians believe about the end of the world, does anyone know what Muslims think?

The Bible probably says it in other places but this is what I could find. (Living Bible version)

Isaiah 44:18 Such stupicity and ignorance! God has shut their eyes so that they cannot see, and closed their minds from understanding.

The Revelation 9:20-21 But the men left alive after these plagues still refused to worship God! They would not renounce their demon-worship, nor their their idols made of gold, and silver, brass, stone, and wood- which neither see nor hear nor walk! Neither did they change their mind and attitude about all their murders and witchcraft, their immorality and theft.

The idols part makes me think of American Idol. scary. :ermm:

Cool, thanks!

A lot of homeless people brought their homeless state upon themselves too, but does that mean we shouldn't help them? Is God being a hypocrite by telling us we should help the poor and homeless when most of the time it's actually their fault and then not helping us because it's our fault?

Has anyone ever thought that, hey, maybe God does what he will, for reasons of his own, and that we can't presume to know why? Because essentially what you guys seem to be doing currently is attempting to justify God's decisions by couching them in terms of your own logic - which is human logic, at best, and thus imperfect. Unless we assume that God is omnipotent, yet mysterious and ultimately not completely knowable, all our premises come crashing down upon us.

Any one of our attempts to characterize God may fall awry if we're not careful to make sure that our arguments are based in Scripture...After all, we may feel God, but what we know about him is -- surprise, surprise! -- in Scripture. So get out your Bibles, folks, if you're going to argue...arguments need to be justified by something, and in this case the Bible is the best consultation you'll find. If your youth minister/preacher/priest/pastor/whoever said something, look it up! Make sure your interpretation makes sense in terms of the overall message of whatever passage you're quoting...quotes taken out of context don't make particularly wonderful arguments, either.

Kudos to Emily for getting out her Bible...

I understand that there are many books out there, and many sources of inspiration, yet when you're trying to know God, I would figure you would at least want to look at the book that's supposedly divinely inspired, even if, in the end, you don't look at it all that often.

My friend D.J. (MSA '99) tells me that he personally views the Bible not so much as the ultimate answer but as a "diving primer" of sorts, since reason is God's gift. Hmm..

Maybe it's time to start a new thread...

To comment on the original post, the idea of "The Rapture", as put forth in Left Behind and so forth, is theologically supported only by a relatively small minority commonly referred to as Fundamentalists. Most Christian denominations don't believe in any such thing (meaning, Jesus coming, taking his faithful, leaving for seven years and then returning). Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that numbers like seven and forty are symbolic in nature; don't mark your calenders based on Biblical passages.

First, RamblingMan, anyone who tells you they know when Jesus is coming back (if he comes back, according to your reasoning) they're wrong. No one knows, not even the pastor with the biggest ministry on Earth. Second, what denominations claim that Christ isn't coming back?