Once again, Science is in line with the scriptures. In this case, the Science is in the form of one of the most brilliant Scientific minds of our era, Stephen Hawking. Hawking came out recently saying we need to abandon earth or face extinction. Pretty strong, sobering words coming from a very smart guy. In fact he's advocating we act fast.
Reminds me of the question posed to Jesus, another brilliant mind, by his disciples. "What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?"
The answer and description given by Jesus, and then later by John in his vision on the isle of Patmos, is not far off from where Hawking is coming from. In other words, just like the "circle of the earth" and "the earth hangs on nothing" another biblical truth comes to light via the Scientific world showing us that God gave us some very important scientific answers all along.
Biblically speaking, the end of the age will start with a cosmic disturbance. The signs will be in the heavens. Many have mentioned astroids as being the destructive means by which this may happen. Some say nuclear bombs will be our undoing.
The bible is clear about this cosmic disturbance that will usher in the end. It says "the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes." Joel 2:31
and...
"there was a great earthquake and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood: and the stars of heaven fell to the earth even as a fig tree casts her untimely figs when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together and every mountain and island were moved out of their places." Rev 6:12-14
Of course, Hawking has given us his view, sans scripture, but both are saying pretty much the same thing. There's coming a day when we will go from one age to another or we will face extinction on this earth. In Hawking's view he's suggesting we explore space for alternative habitation. In God's Word it says he will usher in a "new heaven and a new earth."
There are many signs that show us that the time is drawing near. Look at what's going on in the animal kingdom. Look at mankind and the hatred, greed and violence that is permeating our culture by the hands of many. The weather and climate is but just another thing to watch. The diseases and pestilences as well. All are going to get expedientially stronger until we can't ignore it any longer. I can't pick up the daily newspaper and not wonder how long do we have?
Only God knows.
Our job is to be ready.
Thanks!
Maybe this is true in your sense of what "Church" means, however the Gospels teach something else.
Actually the Church is about explaining...explaining what? ......all the teachings of Christ ...in other words explaining Christianity....explaining to whom? .... all the nations of the world until the end of the world. Read St.Matt. 28:16.-20..it records Christ Himself giving His mission to the Church.."Go therefore and make disciples of all nations ....teaching them to observe all that I have commanded.."
No, Lula the gospels don't preach something else. The great commission (Matt 28) is to go out into the world making disciples. The church is to serve two purposes in their gathering together. The first is to worship God as a corporate body coming together on a regular basis. The second is to edify and encourage the body so they can go out and make disciples as they were commissioned to.
What has happened over the centuries is many have gone above and beyond that and instead of teaching the gospel they are teaching man-made traditions and religions dogma and I think that's where B.T. is coming from. In your case, when I first met you, you had no real working knowledge of the bible. That's typical of most in your denomination. They have no knowledge so how is that for explaning the word of God? Their knowledge instead is more in line with their traditions and dogma than it is with the scriptures.
If you don't believe me, bring a bible to church and ask anyone if they can open up to the book of Numbers or even Peter.
stick to the subject matter Lula. THis is NOT about baptism.
I did. The subject matter turned to BT saying
You responded by telling BT that Church isn't about explaining anything and when I challenge that error by citing Scripture...St.Matt.28: 19-20 to be exact ....you retort that it's not about Baptism.
You write:
But how does St. Matt.28:19-20 record that the church makes disciples of all nations? By teaching (explaining) Christ and by Baptizing in His name.
And besides that if you still think the Church is not about explaining anything, then what did Christ mean when He said, "He who hears you hears me,...."?
I plan to respond to this later I hope you don't delete this too.
I don't want you to respond to it. BT made a comment to me which I responded to. You jumped in and made a comment trying to bring this back to baptism so I addressed you too. Enough. We've been there, done that too many times.
This is not about Baptism or evangelism. It's about Stephen Hawking, Science and how it all relates. If you care to expound on that, fine, but please don't turn this into something it wasn't intended to be.
That's it. Don't turn this into another theological debate Lula. I'm not doing that anymore with you.
It gets us nowhere.
KFC,
C'mon? Be reasonable. Don't you realize that when you write an article in which you quote Scripture, and make assertions as to what it means, that it's you who's asking for a theological debate?
Don't you realize the theological debate started on the first page when Doombrnger challenged your theological pov? BoobzTwo did as well, but when it comes to me...nope...nothing doing.
................................
KFC posts:
Okay, I won't at least not in the way I was originally planning.
However, it's necessary to remind you this is a discussion...and you can't expect to dish it out and give back of the hand swipes at the Church and Catholicism and not expect or allow me to respond.
.....................
I know I read it...in your response to BT, you took a swipe at the CC, just as you did above so...that brings me in.
Agree.
And I was never trying to bring this discussion to Baptism. You just assumed that I was and deleted my comment.
BT wrote she didn't need you or any organization to explain the Bible and your comeback was that the Church isn't about explaining anything. My rebuttal to that was to quote St.Matt. 28 which records the Church's mission is to Baptize as well as to teach.
I quoted Scripture which contains the word Baptize but that doesn't mean I want to bring the discussion to Baptism. I don't.
But it had to do with the subject matter. You have a habit of coming on my site and turning it into a Catholic/Protestant debate. That's ok at times if we're in that general area but not every single time we get close to discussing scripture in general.
If you want to talk black holes, Stephen Hawking or the general end of the age type of scriptures fine but please don't get into the diff between the Catholics and the Protestants.
If you wish, go to this blog I've been visiting where they discuss alot of RCC subjects. I'm gathering they are mostly Catholics who left the church and they discuss the reasons why. I'm sure you can talk all you want about the RCC there. They seem very receptive to the subject.
http://kittykit.wordpress.com/
I agree and so did my comments have to do with the subject matter. Here's why.
There are 6 pages of comments and not all of them directly addressed black holes, Hawking or the general end of the age scriptures. It wasn't long before the discussion developed into one around the subject matter of religion(s). BT's comments of #58 had nothing to do with Hawking per se, but plenty to do with the discussion as it had progressed.
Your own comments # 64, 65 and 66 swerved the discussion head on into your own particular Protestant theological viewpoint.
I disagree with some of those and gave the reasons why citing SCRIPTURE TO REBUT YOUR ASSERTIONS.
Check it out...YOU, not me, are the one who first brought up your theological viewpoint (Protestantism in both your article and comments).
Well, when you quote Scripture and then assert it means or supports something (in this case Hawking's ideas) and I disagree, then sure I'm going to tell you and give reasons why. That's just the way that it is.
Lula, you're not getting it. It's not about Protestant or Catholic. Period.
I give a biblical viewpoint. That's it. It's not a Protestant viewpoint. It's a biblical one.
The ONLY time I even use the word Protestant is with you. We don't go around calling ourselves Protestants. Only the Catholics call us that and it's derogatory because they like to think we're less than they are.
I will do a short "justification by faith alone" soon and then you can go after me with both guns if you wish then. Here or any other subject matter that might incite a little biblical scripture is not giving you a license to debate me on the scriptures to the degree that you are doing.
That's not he point here. You have a blog site yourself. Feel free to speak about the Great Commission all you want there. That's not the point of this thread. When you do such things you are hijacking it. No more.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
A weird and most interesting table.
But I do feel that I absolutely have to comment on it.Christianity was obviously founded once a group of Jews had identified their Messiah. It is therefor an extension of an existing religion and has, because of the Messiah requirement a definite start date.Islam claims that it is the religion of Noah, Abraham and Moses and that Muhammed is just the last in a series of prophets. Hence Islam is older than the 1400 years here implied. (And it is true that some Arab tribes before Muhammed worshipped the god of the Jews and worshipped Him as the only god. They were Muslims already.)
I myself wouldn't list atheism as a religion. It's a belief system but it has no rituals. Buddhism could be considered an atheistic religion, at least some Buddhist sects are such.
Judaism is a tribal religion and properly belongs in that same category. No, more properly Judaism is the version of the religion that developed on Judaea whereas Samaria practiced a different version of the Mosaic religion. But Moses was only a prophet sent by a god who was already worshipped by Moses' ancestors and Moses' ancestors in Iraq (where Abraham came from) had probably worshipped that god for quite some time, while other Semitic tribes worshipped other Semitic gods. So there is no definite date for the start of "Judaism" but I would argue that Moses made a strong start and he lived, traditionally 1300 BCE which is also around the time when Egyptian sources start telling of a tribe named "Habiru" and a bit later of a land named "Yisrael".
The Bahai faith is an extension of Muhammed's Islam just like Muhammed's Islam was an extension of existing monotheism in Arabia.
Pre-Jesus Zoroastrianism, like pre-Jesus Judaism, is understood by Muslims to be Islam as well.
Leauki it was posted entirely to point out to DB that other religions would fill the void once he (hypothetically I assume) eradicated Christianity. The numbers seemed to jibe with other sources, but as far as the descriptive content, I'd probably be the last one to ask if any of it is correct.
Depends on how you want to define it. I would argue Judaism started when Abraham was called out of UR and was the father of the Nation of Israel. Or you could start with his son Isaac and his 12 sons who later were the basis for the 12 tribes of Israel.
There are two major covenants mentioned here, the Abrahamic and the Mosaic. One was unconditional and the other conditional. With Moses his law covenant was designed to establish a moral system for a primative people. They were a motley crew, an uneducated group and to establish this group into a nation they needed a lawy system which we now understand is the Mosaic Covenant or law covenant that we see in the Pentateuch. So while we have the organized nation here, they were still a nation before Moses, just not all put together morally, civilly or ceremonially like they were after Moses.
What god are you speaking of here Leauki when you said "that god?" Are you saying that in Iraq they were worshipping the same God Moses would later worship?
The latter would be the start of the nation of Israel. Isaac and his sons certainly had the same religion as Abraham.
Noah was.
You have not seen the American ones! They have more rituals than a zebra has stripes!
Most self-proclaimed atheists that I have met are really Christians. They have lost their faith (or want to have) but they are still stuck in the Christian religion and perceive the world in a Christian way. It becomes apparent when they talk about all the religions out there and logically assume, since they know no better, that all of them work like Christianity.
yes, but I don't know if I'd call it a religion but a relationship with the God of the universe. God called them out, set them apart from the other nations of the world to be his own people.
and remember you linquistic one you... Abram means "exalted father." His name, changed by God to Abraham means "father of a great multitude."
Ok, ya, that was before the Tower of Babel when things went really astray. God recalibrated the world but it didn't take long before human nature started rearing it's ugly head again. This time God confused their language.
that makes absolutely no sense at all Leauki. How can you be for God and anti-God at the same time?
If you are told that "I was once a Christian and now am an atheist." Don't believe them. They are confused. A Christian is a Christ follower. There's no turning back. You cannot follow Christ until he says in your heart "follow me." You cannot follow Christ spiritually unless you have a heart transplant basically meaning you are "reborn." Once you are born, you cannot become unborn. It doesn't work that way.
In the scripture it was written by John "they departed from us because they were not of us in the first place."
Christianity is a religion, a set of rules and rituals.
Belief in G-d and Jesus is part of Christianity, but the rules and rituals don't require faith.
Call it what you will, but religion and faith are distinct. There is a Christian religion and a Christian faith. And they are not the same thing. Many people follow the monotony of Christian rituals without believing or behaving in a Christian way.
In this country that is true - mostly because most are Christian to begin with. And they have the leisure and time to decide to be "different".
I am not sure they have "lost their faith" as much as they are trying to be self important and so they have to show everyone (the ritual part) how open minded and independent they are.
Not all Christians follow the motto of "live and let live". In that respect, the only difference between the American Atheist (Generalization alert! I did not say all) and the evangelistic christian is the "god" they are trying to convert you to.
The point is that Christians have a few basic beliefs about what religions are, and they will stick to them without noticing.
That is all good and well until a Christian becomes an "atheist" and tells himself that he is now beyond the limits of religion when in reality he is still bound by the limits of his religion and has merely lost the faith that explained the whole thing. Usually it's easier to make a Christian who believes in G-d see that other religions are different than an atheist who lives without a Christian framework. (For example KFC understands Judaism. Most of the secular people who posted here don't.)
I think I understand what you're saying. Essentially, its hard to completely eliminate their frame of thinking and their reference of thinking if that's what they were accustomed to. An example (it'll be non-religious), I have friends that are from several Soviet Block countries and they lived under them. Even though they are in the United States and most have become U.S. citizens they still have that way of thinking because that is the framework they were raised in. Their thinking is different from our thinking and actually in current times it is practical.
Even though they have some what adapted to our society they still think, do things, and respond in a certain way.
I agree with you here for the most part.
I have seen this. I think some try to cram that all paths lead to GOD. Trying to make everything nice and neat and put it in a nice package. In reality, not all religions believe in the similar things and actually most religion have radically different beliefs.
I've met a lot of people who claim to be Buddhist here in the States. Most of them feel that in Buddhism, you are allowed to do whatever you want as long as you have 'good energy/intentions'. Which is a bunch of non-sense/hog wash especially after living in a Buddhist country.
Actually it's not. In the OT there were rules and rituals associated with the Jewish Faith which I partly explained above. Then when Jesus came, he set us free from all that. That's why it's called a "New Covenant." It's consistent with the Old Covenant but NOT a continuation of it. He fulfilled it. All that was in the OT was a shadow of Christ. He is the body of that shadow.
In the NT it was so hard to get the Jews coming into the faith to understand this (read Galatians) because they wanted to hang onto the old. Jesus said, you don't put new wine in old wineskins.
The laws/rituals in the Old Covenant were a way of life (as I explained earlier) NOT a way to life. That's why Jesus said "I AM the way truth and life." The law and rituals were never a bais for going to heaven. If so, none would get there because every single one of us in one way or the other has broken the first commandment.
To break one law is to break them all. It was a pkg deal.
BUT after saying that Leauki, I think I understand where you might be coming from. The denominations in the name of Christ or Christianity are all about rules and regulations but that is in spite of what the scriptures say, therefore they are rules and regulations of man not God.
If you go back and read Acts 15 (the beginning of the church) you'd read the instructions given. The Jewsish Christians now were convinced that the Gentiles were to now come into the faith. So what do we do with them? They had a council (Jerusalem) to discuss the matter. Do we make them come under the law? Do we have them circumcized? The answer was a clear NO. The only two "rules" were for them to obstain from sexual immorality and avoid idolatry. That's it.
Chrisitanity is not supposed to be about a heavy burden of rules and regulations but one that is light and easy. Man has a way of putting us under such regulations with their man made excessive doctrines.
Ok, I don't have a problem with this. I would probably say that some "Christian" religions are in name only. They carry the name but are phoney. Remember you can profess anything you want to but the real question is do you possess the faith?
An example.
In John 8 Jesus went up against a bunch of religious Jews. They told Christ they followed Abraham and the God of Abraham. The evidence pointed in the other direction. Christ challenged them. If you were, and you're not, you would act like Abraham. Just like children have the genetic makeup of their parents so it is with the spiritual. It's the spiritual genetics that matters not the physical (which they were relying on).
If they wre truly children of Abraham they would act like Him. There was no proof to convict them. They were imitators but not genuine.
It's the same with these so called Christians who have walked away (or maybe still there) and some of the denominations who started out good intentioned but got weary in contending with the faith and fell victim to the whims of the culture.
Anyhow it ended with name calling. Insults, and violent language are favorite weapons of the devil. 10X between verses 12-59 these religious Jews, who said they were children of Abraham interrupted, contradicted and reviled this son of David who was one of them. His meekness and dignity is an unforgotten example for the rest of us.
I have always found her to be very insightful in religious knowledge. She does her homework.
I got to give you an insightful for that one! A light bulb just went off and that explains a lot - both their antipathy towards Christianity and why they pretend to be who they are. It is both stemming from what is now being called "white guilt" (because of the election of Obama), but is actually more generic than that. I heard a term several years back - affluenza. They have a guilt feeling because they have so much! So they are against everything that got them (or what they perceive to have gotten them) all that.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
