FC Community

Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: madeara on June 02, 2012, 07:47:19 am

Title: Second Coming
Post by: madeara on June 02, 2012, 07:47:19 am
Hebrews 9:28
New International Version (NIV)
28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: rghvac69 on June 02, 2012, 08:09:52 am
The signs are definitely pointing to Christ returning soon.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Falconer02 on June 02, 2012, 10:05:44 am
Just a heads up- Please either keep your bible quotes to one thread or just post them in Off Topic. You're going to end up flooding this forum and the admins will not like that.

Quote
The signs are definitely pointing to Christ returning soon

...as all of the Christians have been saying for nearly 2000 years now...
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 02, 2012, 04:41:07 pm
Just a heads up- Please either keep your bible quotes to one thread or just post them in Off Topic. You're going to end up flooding this forum and the admins will not like that.

Not only that but, if some xtians 'believe' that it would be a good idea to spam the d&d forum with bible-thumping proselytizations, objections to that 'idea' will be forthcoming in a most unambiguous way.

Quote
The signs are definitely pointing to Christ returning soon

...as all of the Christians have been saying for nearly 2000 years now...

Such a forlorn hope arises out of blind faith and not from reason or evidence.

"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science --or any honest intellectual inquiry."
-- Stephen J. Gould
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: rghvac69 on June 02, 2012, 06:59:58 pm
Blind faith has nothing to do with my belief that Christ is returning soon. The benchmark of the end times began with the reformation of the state of Israel, which was predicted in the bible. Since then, we have had globalization, an increase in earthquakes and storms, an alliance between Russia and Iran, moral decay, economic woes, terrorism, and many other things which the bible predicted over 2000 years ago. I read these prophecies, and wonder how man could have invented them, since man cannot accurately predict the weather or stock market from day-to-day, which convinces me that these predictions were revealed to the prophets by God. To read a prediction, and see it come to pass, to me, is evidence that the bible is true, and that my beliefs are based on reason, and not blind faith.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 02, 2012, 07:29:49 pm
Blind faith has nothing to do with my belief that Christ is returning soon.

Unless you're kidding; that's the most illogical, irrational thing I've come across all day.  It's a belief, which means it relies entirely upon blind faith, (and that means a contention which lacks valid supporting evidence).

The benchmark of the end times began with the reformation of the state of Israel, which was predicted in the bible.

The use of a self-referential source, (in this instance, one of several 'biblical' sources), is circular and self-invalidating.  That is, it's the contextual-equivalant of asserting that 'the source material is valid and accurate because the source material asserts that it is valid and accurate.'

Since then, we have had globalization ...

We've also had industialization, technical innovations, medical advances and other very conspicuous changes which were Not "prophesized" in the dubious source being referenced.  Please provide a reasoned explanation for these glaring omissions which definitely affect the state of the world's populations just as much, (or more), than the biblical cites mentioned.

... an increase in earthquakes and storms ...

Nope, those are running at about the same same frequency as always, (cites can be provided).  What else?

... an alliance between Russia and Iran ...

Is it actually being asserted that such an alliance was specifically predicted in the biblical source referenced, (and not 'liberally-interpreted' instead)?  What else?

... moral decay, economic woes ...

We've also got tooth decay and the decay of radioactive isotopes - all of which has been going on since there were people, (and before then, in the instance of the isotopes).  "Prophesizing" the obviously-extant is no great feat.  What else?

...terrorism, and many other things which the bible predicted over 2000 years ago.

Oddly enough, the vast majority of such "terrorism" arises from the religious blind faith of some nominally Islamic adherents.  Sounds ironic, doesn't it?  If not, how about 'hypocritical'?

I read these prophecies, and wonder how man could have invented them, since man cannot accurately predict the weather or stock market from day-to-day, which convinces me that these predictions were revealed to the prophets by God.

To read a prediction, and see it come to pass, to me, is evidence that the bible is true, and that my beliefs are based on reason, and not blind faith.

Conversely, not a one of the vague 'biblical cites' presented as 'evidence' which would support your premise as valid or accurate.  Basing a conclusion upon an invalid/inaccurate premise leads to such a conclusion being false.

"Religion is based ... mainly upon fear ... fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand . . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race."
-- Bertrand Russell
                              
                           (http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Falconer02 on June 02, 2012, 09:10:40 pm
Quote
The benchmark of the end times began with the reformation of the state of Israel, which was predicted in the bible.
Quote
Since then, we have had globalization, an increase in earthquakes and storms, an alliance between Russia and Iran, moral decay, economic woes, terrorism, and many other things which the bible predicted over 2000 years ago.
Quote
I read these prophecies, and wonder how man could have invented them, since man cannot accurately predict the weather or stock market from day-to-day, which convinces me that these predictions were revealed to the prophets by God.

"To read a prediction, and see it come to pass, to me, is evidence that the bible is true, and that my beliefs are based on reason, and not blind faith."

Before I begin, let me first state that I'm not here to start some emotional quarrel, so if you simply want to have a friendly debate and someone to challenge the validity of what you're preaching, by all means keep posting to me and/or Falcon9.

So you say that your beliefs are based within reason, so I will take you as someone who is a reasonable individual and capable of debating your side within rational means. You must understand that in order for something as amazing as a prophecy to be true, it must be 100% accurate with good descriptions and explanations-- saying otherwise would be irrational if you refuse to allow skepticism in your reasoning process. Why is this important? Because if you allow for vague descriptions, anyone can be a prophet (example- "there will be a war in the future, therefore I'm a prophet!"). Now a lot of these prophecies you've listed are just flat-out false, and anyone who is reasonable could see this. How can you say you base your beliefs on reason when-
a.) earthquakes and storms have not gotten worse
b.) alliances are formed and are broken throughout history
c.) Moral decline is always within the eye of the beholder (we're actually better off imo considering we can enforce strict laws, don't have colloseums where we watch men slaughter eachother, etc.)
d.) Economic woes are nothing new historically
e.) Terrorism is nothing new either and is found in every world power throughout history

So how are your beliefs based on reason when your evidences for these beliefs are either vague, false, or uninformed?
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Cuppycake on June 03, 2012, 07:48:38 am
The gullibility of the masses never ceases to amaze me.   
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Cuppycake on June 03, 2012, 07:50:07 am
Blind faith has nothing to do with my belief that Christ is returning soon. The benchmark of the end times began with the reformation of the state of Israel, which was predicted in the bible. Since then, we have had globalization, an increase in earthquakes and storms, an alliance between Russia and Iran, moral decay, economic woes, terrorism, and many other things which the bible predicted over 2000 years ago. I read these prophecies, and wonder how man could have invented them, since man cannot accurately predict the weather or stock market from day-to-day, which convinces me that these predictions were revealed to the prophets by God. To read a prediction, and see it come to pass, to me, is evidence that the bible is true, and that my beliefs are based on reason, and not blind faith.
Yes. Yes it does. So does believing any old  :bs: that you are told apparently.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: rghvac69 on June 03, 2012, 08:43:55 am
     Iím going to try to get to all these prophecies that I stated, but it might take some time.

     Letís start with the Russian/Iranian alliance. First some background. Persia changed its name to Iran in the 1930's. Russia is derived from Rus. The current name (Rossiya) comes from the Greek version Rusí, nowadays spelled (Rosia).  Wikipedia .org

     Ezekiel Chapter 38 is where I found the Russian/Iranian alliance during the end times, which is the time period after the restoration of the State of Israel. In the second verse of Ez 38 you will find the words ďThe Chief PrinceĒ of Meshech and Tubal. The Chief Prince is the word Rosh in the Hebrew language. It should have been translated ďthe head, or leader of Rosh.Ē The words Meshech and Tubal are regions near the Caucasus, which is now modern Armenia and Georgia, both former Soviet states.

     In verse 5 you will find Persia (Iran), Ethiopia (Kush or Africa), and Libya (Phut or North Africa). The verse says that these nations, most prominently Persia, will be with the leader of Rosh, or Russia.

     In verse 8 you will find that the time period for this prophecy is during the latter years, or the end times. It also states that these nations will attack Israel, a land that has been brought back from the sword (The Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians around 600 B.C. and the Southern Kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians around 400 B.C.), and was gathered out of many peoples (The Israelites returned to the State of Israel in 1948, coming out of Europe, Asia, and other places.)

     In verse 14 the subject changes back to Gog, which in verse 2 is the nation of Rosh. It states Rosh will come from the North country, and if you find Jerusalem on a map and go north, you will almost intersect Moscow, the capital of Rosh, or Russia. 

     A better translation of Ezekiel 38 can be found in the James Moffatt translation of the bible.

     Now, when I watch the current events on the news, and hear of Russia and Iran becoming allies, and partners in Iranís nuclear program, and their threats (especially Iran) against Israel, I think of this chapter, and to me, at least, is evidence that this prophecy is correct
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: potluck6 on June 03, 2012, 03:47:42 pm
are people still going to be waiting in the year 3012 guess will never know
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 03, 2012, 05:10:18 pm
    Letís start with the Russian/Iranian alliance.

Let's stop using 'biblical' sources which are self-referential, (which is a logical fallacy and rejected not only on that basis but, on the basis of a self-serving agenda of "it says so in the 'bible' and that's believed without question" - when it is questioned), and are loosely-interpreted as "prophesies".  Such dubious references have no foundation in reason and rely instead entirely upon belief and yes, blind faith.
  
    Now, when I watch the current events on the news, and hear of Russia and Iran becoming allies, and partners in Iranís nuclear program, and their threats (especially Iran) against Israel, I think of this chapter, and to me, at least, is evidence that this prophecy is correct.

Not only is your "evidence" specious, it does not constitute evidence according to the definition of that term.  What it does constitute is textual hearsay and hearsay is questionable 'witness' testimony, not evidence, (except perhaps of perjory).

"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of
their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science --or any honest intellectual inquiry."
-- Stephen J. Gould


ďThe notion that faith in 'xrist' is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.'Ē
-- Robert Green Ingersoll
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: duroz on June 04, 2012, 01:29:35 am
    Iím going to try to get to all these prophecies that I stated, but it might take some time.

     Letís start with the Russian/Iranian alliance. First some background. Persia changed its name to Iran in the 1930's. Russia is derived from Rus. The current name (Rossiya) comes from the Greek version Rusí, nowadays spelled (Rosia).  Wikipedia .org

     Ezekiel Chapter 38 is where I found the Russian/Iranian alliance during the end times, which is the time period after the restoration of the State of Israel. In the second verse of Ez 38 you will find the words ďThe Chief PrinceĒ of Meshech and Tubal. The Chief Prince is the word Rosh in the Hebrew language. It should have been translated ďthe head, or leader of Rosh.Ē The words Meshech and Tubal are regions near the Caucasus, which is now modern Armenia and Georgia, both former Soviet states.

     In verse 5 you will find Persia (Iran), Ethiopia (Kush or Africa), and Libya (Phut or North Africa). The verse says that these nations, most prominently Persia, will be with the leader of Rosh, or Russia.

     In verse 8 you will find that the time period for this prophecy is during the latter years, or the end times. It also states that these nations will attack Israel, a land that has been brought back from the sword (The Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians around 600 B.C. and the Southern Kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians around 400 B.C.), and was gathered out of many peoples (The Israelites returned to the State of Israel in 1948, coming out of Europe, Asia, and other places.)

     In verse 14 the subject changes back to Gog, which in verse 2 is the nation of Rosh. It states Rosh will come from the North country, and if you find Jerusalem on a map and go north, you will almost intersect Moscow, the capital of Rosh, or Russia.  

     A better translation of Ezekiel 38 can be found in the James Moffatt translation of the bible.

     Now, when I watch the current events on the news, and hear of Russia and Iran becoming allies, and partners in Iranís nuclear program, and their threats (especially Iran) against Israel, I think of this chapter, and to me, at least, is evidence that this prophecy is correct

OK.
Here's something I find to be EQUALLY if not MORE believable:

          Paul McCartney died in a car crash November 9, 1966.
  *The remaining Beatles hushed it up and replaced him with a look-alike, sound-alike.
  *Then they planted clues as proof of this in their albums - in songs, song lyrics, and pictures.
  *It was discovered in 1969 - by an anonymous fan, who called in to a radio show and reported it.

Here is EVIDENCE (some of the clues they planted) PROVING the truth of this:
(http://i.imgur.com/rdoxj.jpg)
Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Album
*Cover picture shows a grave with flowers shaped like a bass guitar-(McCartney's instrument)-and like the letter "P" (Paul).    
*Inside photo: McCartney wears a patch reading "O.P.D." (Officially Pronounced Dead), the British equivalent of "D.O.A."    
*The back cover of the album: McCartney is the only Beatle with his back facing frontward.


(http://i.imgur.com/EtVxj.jpg)
Magical Mystery Tour Album
The songs: I Am the Walrus, Strawberry Fields Forever
*I Am the Walrus: the walrus is believed to be a symbol of death in some cultures - McCartney is in a walrus suit on the front cover.
*Pg 23, inside series of pictures: McCartney has a black rose in his lapel, the other Beatles have red roses.
                        *****************************************************************
*In the song Strawberry Fields Forever: at its end a distorted voice says "I buried Paul," which can be heard plainly at 45 rpm.
*In the song I Am the Walrus: The lyrics "Goo Goo G'Joob" have been said to be the last words of Humpty Dumpty (the "eggman") before his terrible accident, and could have been Paul's as well;
And at the end of the song a voice asks, "Is he dead, father?"


(http://i.imgur.com/cyk9U.jpg)
Abbey Road Album
*Cover picture shows all four Beatles walking away from what may be a cemetery, a barefoot McCartney is out of step. John was dressed in white, representing a preacher. Ringo was a mourner or an undertaker because he was dressed in black. George with his denim jeans and shirt was a gravedigger. Because Paul was barefoot and not in step he was deceased.
*The yellow VW bug license plate that reads 28IF (Paul would be 28 IF he hadn't died)


(http://i.imgur.com/ksu2z.jpg)
The Beatles - White Album
The songs: (Looking Through a) Glass Onion, Revolution Number Nine
*Glass Onion: a glass onion is a coffin with a transparent top
*In the song Glass Onion: the line, "Well, here's another clue for you all: the walrus was Paul."
*In the song Revolution Number Nine: a backwards tape which repeats the words "Turn me on, dead man."

Are these CLUES all not sufficient EVIDENCE to support the "FACT" that Paul McCartney was killed in a car crash in November of 1966, just as the "world events" you mention are sufficient proof to support the claim that these "PROPHECIES/PREDICTIONS" are correct???  
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: duroz on June 04, 2012, 07:08:47 am
Just a heads up- Please either keep your bible quotes to one thread or just post them in Off Topic. You're going to end up flooding this forum and the admins will not like that.

Aaaaand...we have YET ANOTHER bible quotes thread started: http://www.fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=41874.0 (http://www.fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=41874.0)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 05, 2012, 01:57:56 pm
Just a heads up- Please either keep your bible quotes to one thread or just post them in Off Topic. You're going to end up flooding this forum and the admins will not like that.

Aaaaand...we have YET ANOTHER bible quotes thread started: http://www.fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=41874.0 (http://www.fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=41874.0)

As "duroz" points out, the demonstrable fact of multiple bible-thumping threads is providing the sheer weight of evidence of religious proselytizing.  Given that extant evidence, there is zero basis for false claims/complaints of 'trolling', etc. when such numerous examples of propagandistic proselytizing is being duplicated in several concurrent threads, (because that would not only be one-sided but, hypocritical of the xtians engaging in it).
                               (http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: alaric99x on June 05, 2012, 02:10:58 pm
I'm not at all convinced by the interpretation that Ezekial predicts Russian, Iranian, etc. actions in our time.  Amazing how gullible and self-delusiononal some people can be.  I am, however, now convinced that McCartney actually died in 1966.  Who is the guy who's been running around all these years impersonating him?
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 05, 2012, 02:40:03 pm
I'm not at all convinced by the interpretation that Ezekial predicts Russian, Iranian, etc. actions in our time.  Amazing how gullible and self-delusiononal some people can be.  

Besides the whole gog/magog/makes-me-gag pseudo-prophesy, what about other such loose "interpretations" of Ezekial's about alien spacecraft, ('wheels within wheels')?

I am, however, now convinced that McCartney actually died in 1966.  Who is the guy who's been running around all these years impersonating him?

Maybe one of Ezekial's angelic-aliens?
 :o

"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly (of religion) and ignorant superstition."
-- Isaac Asimov
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: duroz on June 05, 2012, 02:57:04 pm
I'm not at all convinced by the interpretation that Ezekial predicts Russian, Iranian, etc. actions in our time.  Amazing how gullible and self-delusiononal some people can be.  I am, however, now convinced that McCartney actually died in 1966.  Who is the guy who's been running around all these years impersonating him?

Maybe one of Ezekial's angelic-aliens?  :o

:D  :thumbsup:

NOPE! ;D

William Shears Campbell a.k.a.Billy Shears - And here is "PROOF"

Quote
In order for McCartney's death to be kept under wraps, the Beatles would need a look-alike to sub for him. It's said they found the perfect candidate in an actor named William Shears Campbell, the winner of a McCartney look-alike contest who resembled the singer so much that he was supposedly on the Beatles' payroll as a stand-in to throw off fans and the press.

The name may ring a bell from the "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" lyric on the album of the same name: "So let me introduce to you / The one and only Billy Shears / And Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."

Quote
William Shears Campbell was also known as Neil Aspinall and Billy Shepherd.  He was "Billy Shears" from the Beatles song.  Billy went through plastic surgery and singing lessons to replace Paul MacCartney and take on the role of Paul (not just replace him).

The above was found at abovetopsecret.com and trutv.com
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: alaric99x on June 05, 2012, 03:05:14 pm
Somebody better tell the queen!
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 05, 2012, 03:10:33 pm
Somebody better tell the queen!

... of Nines or, the one who wore earplugs during the musical portion of her diamond jubilee and maybe 'knighted' the wrong guy?
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: rghvac69 on June 05, 2012, 03:47:15 pm
Well, I see that debating & discussing the issue is over, and the usual insults and attacks have begun. There is one thing that Iím curious about, however, and that is if you bible-bashers do have to face God someday, and He requires you to give an account of all your nasty, cruel, and vile posts about Him and Christianity, I wonder if you will have the guts like you do behind a computer screen to tell Him face-to-face everything that you have written? Or will you whimper and shiver and cry like big, cowardly babies, making lemonade (or fudge) in your pants? Iím just curious. I hope I get to see this someday. Iíll be sitting back, munching on popcorn and having me a heavenly brew while watching. Itíll be fun.

Good luck to you.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 05, 2012, 04:11:03 pm
Well, I see that debating & discussing the issue is over ...

You never bothered debating the refutations and challenges presented, so how can something which never began be over?  On the other hand, maybe it is over after your specious contentions were refuted and you being unable to form any other rebuttal than a lame 'flame' in response.

... and the usual insults and attacks have begun.

If you're going to dishonestly characterized unanswered challenges "insults and attacks", then no actual debate or discussion can proceed on that false basis.
 
There is one thing that Iím curious about, however, and that is if you bible-bashers ...

Whoa ... that's not one of them there "insults and attacks", is it?  You're not only a bible-thumper, you're a hypocritical 'thumper to boot, (that's not an insult or attack since it's an accurate description, concluded by directly quoting you).

... do have to face God someday, and He requires you to give an account of all your nasty, cruel, and vile posts about Him and Christianity ...

One could almost, (almost), wish there were some such a hypothetical judgemental entity, (other than yourself), who could also point out your faith-blinded religious bias as representational of such 'true believers' who characterize rational criticisms as "nasty/cruel/vile".

I wonder if you will have the guts like you do behind a computer screen to tell Him face-to-face everything that you have written?

Well, even though there's exactly zero evidence for such a hypothetical entity's existence, I'd repeat the same face-to-nonexistent face.

Or will you whimper and shiver and cry like big, cowardly babies, making lemonade (or fudge) in your pants? Iím just curious. I hope I get to see this someday. Iíll be sitting back, munching on popcorn and having me a heavenly brew while watching. Itíll be fun.

Since you've elected, (of your own 'free will'), to pop in; bash instead of debate, insult in lieu of discussion, (a 'cowardly hit-and-run' posting), in a feeble attempt to 'get in the last word', consider this.  Even as we type, there are xtians and non-xtians fervently hoping that you aren't a representative example of such santimonious, narrow-minded, faith-blinded, irrational, immature and abysmally-stupid believers.  Because if you are, may a non-existent hypothetical supernatural entity have a hypothetical mercy on your hypothetical 'soul'.

Good luck to you.

Bad luck to you, (because I'm at least honest, as opposed to you, xtian hypocrit).


"Religion easily has the greatest bull*bleep* story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced
people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day.
And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these
ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to
live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you!"
-- George Carlin, (from his album "You Are All Diseased")
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: duroz on June 05, 2012, 04:58:41 pm
Somebody better tell the queen! 
(http://i.imgur.com/NVZGv.gif)



Ohhh........ :confused1:

(http://i.imgur.com/lNQ6H.gif)

uh-uh.......I'm not telling her.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: angsilva2000 on June 05, 2012, 05:05:04 pm
congrats to you
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: duroz on June 05, 2012, 05:10:01 pm
Somebody better tell the queen!

... of Nines or, the one who wore earplugs during the musical portion of her diamond jubilee and maybe 'knighted' the wrong guy? 

 ;D Now THAT'S just plain HILARIOUS!!! ;D   

(http://i.imgur.com/OHaiS.gif)       (http://i.imgur.com/NVZGv.gif)   

:thumbsup: YAY falcon9!! :thumbsup:

(hmmmm...where'd those dang cheerleading gals git off to now....dagnabbit, just when we need 'em...)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 05, 2012, 05:20:20 pm
Somebody better tell the queen!

... of Nines or, the one who wore earplugs during the musical portion of her diamond jubilee and maybe 'knighted' the wrong guy? 


;D Now THAT'S just plain HILARIOUS!!! ;D   

(http://i.imgur.com/OHaiS.gif)       (http://i.imgur.com/NVZGv.gif)   

:thumbsup: YAY falcon9!! :thumbsup:

(hmmmm...where'd those dang cheerleading gals git off to now....dagnabbit, just when we need 'em...)

Didn't it seem a bit "rude" of 'her majesty' to not only wear earplugs but, sneak out before it was over? {- "these dang kids today with their rock and or roll type musics ... why in my day, we had real music ... and beheadings!"?}

Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: duroz on June 05, 2012, 05:33:45 pm
Somebody better tell the queen!

... of Nines or, the one who wore earplugs during the musical portion of her diamond jubilee and maybe 'knighted' the wrong guy? 


;D Now THAT'S just plain HILARIOUS!!! ;D   

(http://i.imgur.com/OHaiS.gif)       (http://i.imgur.com/NVZGv.gif)   

:thumbsup: YAY falcon9!! :thumbsup:

(hmmmm...where'd those dang cheerleading gals git off to now....dagnabbit, just when we need 'em...)

Didn't it seem a bit "rude" of 'her majesty' to not only wear earplugs but, sneak out before it was over?

More than a bit rude.......
{- "these dang kids today with their rock and or roll type musics ... why in my day, we had real music ... and beheadings!"?}

Oh how :D FUN!!! :D


AND I'm going to start a new topic -
(before anyone gets jumped for driving the LOCO-motive off the tracks into the ditch, or lake, or maybe took off with it for some four-wheelin'....)
because I have  :o PICTURE PROOF that McCartney was replaced in '66  :o

;D
I'ma make EVEYBUDDY into a b'liever....EV-EY-BUD-DY!!
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: alaric99x on June 05, 2012, 08:58:17 pm
New topic?  How about if somebody starts a bible verse of the day topic, I've been missing that for a while.  Maybe something a little more original, like a "Second Coming" thread.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: alaric99x on June 05, 2012, 09:19:10 pm
Well, I see that debating & discussing the issue is over, and the usual insults and attacks have begun. There is one thing that Iím curious about, however, and that is if you bible-bashers do have to face God someday, and He requires you to give an account of all your nasty, cruel, and vile posts about Him and Christianity, I wonder if you will have the guts like you do behind a computer screen to tell Him face-to-face everything that you have written? Or will you whimper and shiver and cry like big, cowardly babies, making lemonade (or fudge) in your pants? Iím just curious. I hope I get to see this someday. Iíll be sitting back, munching on popcorn and having me a heavenly brew while watching. Itíll be fun.

Good luck to you.

You're obviously a complete idiot that doesn't even understand the fundamental doctrine of your own religion.  According to your beliefs I shouldn't have to give any account to your god, because he should already know without requiring any explanation from me.  I shouldn't need to tell him face-to-face what I've written because, according to your doctrine, he should already know.  Furthermore, I don't have to whimper, shiver or cry because, again according to your doctrine, he's such a loving and forgiving god, so he'll forgive my confusions and welcome me into his heavenly kingdom anyway. 
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: alaric99x on June 05, 2012, 09:30:58 pm
And then to add to this, you hope that we'll pizz our pants and then even shyt in our pants, well you're not a very forgiving and loving christian yourself, are you?  You need to get on your knees, repent and beg for a little more forgiveness for yourself and beg god to understand and forgive your cruel and uncharitable thoughts toward your fellow human beings.  Amen
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: alaric99x on June 05, 2012, 09:54:01 pm
And the final comment that you make is one of extreme vengeance where you'll be munching popcorn while enjoying the suffering, those who didn't have the sense to bow down before your god.  Good for you, expressing pleasure at the suffering of others, that really makes you a very exemplary christian.  Idiot....
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: duroz on June 05, 2012, 10:24:35 pm
Well, I see that debating & discussing the issue is over, and the usual insults and attacks have begun. There is one thing that Iím curious about, however, and that is if you bible-bashers do have to face God someday, and He requires you to give an account of all your nasty, cruel, and vile posts about Him and Christianity, I wonder if you will have the guts like you do behind a computer screen to tell Him face-to-face everything that you have written? Or will you whimper and shiver and cry like big, cowardly babies, making lemonade (or fudge) in your pants? Iím just curious. I hope I get to see this someday. Iíll be sitting back, munching on popcorn and having me a heavenly brew while watching. Itíll be fun.

Good luck to you.

You're obviously a complete idiot that doesn't even understand the fundamental doctrine of your own religion.  According to your beliefs I shouldn't have to give any account to your god, because he should already know without requiring any explanation from me.  I shouldn't need to tell him face-to-face what I've written because, according to your doctrine, he should already know.  Furthermore, I don't have to whimper, shiver or cry because, again according to your doctrine, he's such a loving and forgiving god, so he'll forgive my confusions and welcome me into his heavenly kingdom anyway. 

And the final comment that you make is one of extreme vengeance where you'll be munching popcorn while enjoying the suffering, those who didn't have the sense to bow down before your god.  Good for you, expressing pleasure at the suffering of others, that really makes you a very exemplary christian.  Idiot....

alaric99x-
:thumbsup: Wow! Who knew you were so much FUN!! :thumbsup:

You should really stop mincing words, and say what you mean though.... ::)
                                                                                                (J.K.!!) 

It's not good for you to hold things in........so just let it out!

  (http://i.imgur.com/DOhBj.jpg)


Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 05, 2012, 11:37:17 pm
Well, I see that debating & discussing the issue is over, and the usual insults and attacks have begun. There is one thing that Iím curious about, however, and that is if you bible-bashers do have to face God someday, and He requires you to give an account of all your nasty, cruel, and vile posts about Him and Christianity, I wonder if you will have the guts like you do behind a computer screen to tell Him face-to-face everything that you have written? Or will you whimper and shiver and cry like big, cowardly babies, making lemonade (or fudge) in your pants? Iím just curious. I hope I get to see this someday. Iíll be sitting back, munching on popcorn and having me a heavenly brew while watching. Itíll be fun.
Good luck to you.

You're obviously a complete idiot that doesn't even understand the fundamental doctrine of your own religion.  According to your beliefs I shouldn't have to give any account to your god, because he should already know without requiring any explanation from me.  I shouldn't need to tell him face-to-face what I've written because, according to your doctrine, he should already know.  Furthermore, I don't have to whimper, shiver or cry because, again according to your doctrine, he's such a loving and forgiving god, so he'll forgive my confusions and welcome me into his heavenly kingdom anyway.

And the final comment that you make is one of extreme vengeance where you'll be munching popcorn while enjoying the suffering, those who didn't have the sense to bow down before your god.  Good for you, expressing pleasure at the suffering of others, that really makes you a very exemplary christian.  Idiot....

alaric99x-
:thumbsup: Wow! Who knew you were so much FUN!! :thumbsup:

You should really stop mincing words, and say what you mean though.... ::)
                                                                                                (J.K.!!) 

It's not good for you to hold things in........so just let it out!

  (http://i.imgur.com/DOhBj.jpg)

Indeed.  My response sounded almost politely-circumspect in comparison?
 :o
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: SherylsShado on June 06, 2012, 09:33:14 am
Well, I see that debating & discussing the issue is over, and the usual insults and attacks have begun. There is one thing that Iím curious about, however, and that is if you bible-bashers do have to face God someday, and He requires you to give an account of all your nasty, cruel, and vile posts about Him and Christianity, I wonder if you will have the guts like you do behind a computer screen to tell Him face-to-face everything that you have written? Or will you whimper and shiver and cry like big, cowardly babies, making lemonade (or fudge) in your pants? Iím just curious. I hope I get to see this someday. Iíll be sitting back, munching on popcorn and having me a heavenly brew while watching. Itíll be fun.
Good luck to you.

 
So now that the "usual insults and attacks have begun" as you say, just a few things that I am curious about.
    
1.) Why call a non-believer a "Bible-basher" when you're the one attempting to "beat" others with your Bible?  Just because someone doesn't agree with you, or they challenge your thoughts...they are automatically entitled to be served hatred from you?   Maybe you should consider getting one of those moving graphics like falcon9 has of "beating a dead horse" only have a character "beating" others with a Bible, I'm sure it would be no time before several others would have to have one too.

   2.)  Which version of the Bible did you base your comments on?  I use many versions when studying while tending to rely most on the King James.  I ask because I cannot find any verses in any of those versions about there being any "lemonade", "fudge" or "pants" for that matter on Judgment Day.  Nothing about popcorn or any sort of "heavenly brew for you" either, sorry.  I am really curious as to what Bible you spend time in.  Does yours have  Matthew 22:37-40  "Jesus said unto him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like to it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." ???  
    
      Doesn't that mean Christians are to love God AND love their fellows...

3.)  What about the verse where Jesus says:  (John 14:15)
      ďIf you love me, you will keep my commandments." ???
      
     Doesn't that mean if one loves Jesus, they will have the love of God inside them and it will reflect in the words one uses, the deeds one does, and how one treats others?  
      
     I'm not seeing the love in your post above.

4.)  Is this definition of love in your Bible?

1 Corinthians 13:4Ė8 (NIV)
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."
    
     How is it that so many can call themselves a Christian and yet ignore God's FIRST and GREATEST COMMANDMENT as well as the SECOND that He Himself said was 'like unto it"?  
  
5.)  Your post reflects "pride, arrogance, conceit, and is boastful" which is quite the opposite of the Bible's definition of love.  The words in your posts are a reflection of what is in your heart nonetheless and you know--- it was those same attributes that got Satan the "boot".  
    
On Judgment Day, be sure you're not guilty before God of blocking the way for others seeking to enter into the kingdom of God.  
Good luck to you.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Cuppycake on June 06, 2012, 09:41:59 am
Somebody better tell the queen!

... of Nines or, the one who wore earplugs during the musical portion of her diamond jubilee and maybe 'knighted' the wrong guy? 

 ;D Now THAT'S just plain HILARIOUS!!! ;D   

(http://i.imgur.com/OHaiS.gif)       (http://i.imgur.com/NVZGv.gif)   

:thumbsup: YAY falcon9!! :thumbsup:

(hmmmm...where'd those dang cheerleading gals git off to now....dagnabbit, just when we need 'em...)

(http://troyjrtrojanfootball.com/ESW/Images/Animated%2520cheerleader%2520red%2520n%2520blue.gif?xcache=7546)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 06, 2012, 12:57:04 pm
    Letís start with the Russian/Iranian alliance.

Let's stop using 'biblical' sources which are self-referential, (which is a logical fallacy and rejected not only on that basis but, on the basis of a self-serving agenda of "it says so in the 'bible' and that's believed without question" - when it is questioned), and are loosely-interpreted as "prophesies".  Such dubious references have no foundation in reason and rely instead entirely upon belief and yes, blind faith.
  
    Now, when I watch the current events on the news, and hear of Russia and Iran becoming allies, and partners in Iranís nuclear program, and their threats (especially Iran) against Israel, I think of this chapter, and to me, at least, is evidence that this prophecy is correct.

Not only is your "evidence" specious, it does not constitute evidence according to the definition of that term.  What it does constitute is textual hearsay and hearsay is questionable 'witness' testimony, not evidence, (except perhaps of perjory).

"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of
their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science --or any honest intellectual inquiry."
-- Stephen J. Gould


ďThe notion that faith in 'xrist' is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.'Ē
-- Robert Green Ingersoll

I'm waiting for you to "debate" the rest of rghvac's response to you - I was surprised you didn't comment on any of the core comment with regards to history.  Thanks.

   "Ezekiel Chapter 38 is where I found the Russian/Iranian alliance during the end times, which is the time period after the restoration of the State of Israel. In the second verse of Ez 38 you will find the words ďThe Chief PrinceĒ of Meshech and Tubal. The Chief Prince is the word Rosh in the Hebrew language. It should have been translated ďthe head, or leader of Rosh.Ē The words Meshech and Tubal are regions near the Caucasus, which is now modern Armenia and Georgia, both former Soviet states.

     In verse 5 you will find Persia (Iran), Ethiopia (Kush or Africa), and Libya (Phut or North Africa). The verse says that these nations, most prominently Persia, will be with the leader of Rosh, or Russia.

     In verse 8 you will find that the time period for this prophecy is during the latter years, or the end times. It also states that these nations will attack Israel, a land that has been brought back from the sword (The Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians around 600 B.C. and the Southern Kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians around 400 B.C.), and was gathered out of many peoples (The Israelites returned to the State of Israel in 1948, coming out of Europe, Asia, and other places.)

     In verse 14 the subject changes back to Gog, which in verse 2 is the nation of Rosh. It states Rosh will come from the North country, and if you find Jerusalem on a map and go north, you will almost intersect Moscow, the capital of Rosh, or Russia.

     A better translation of Ezekiel 38 can be found in the James Moffatt translation of the bible."         
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: duroz on June 06, 2012, 01:12:22 pm
:thumbsup: YAY falcon9!! :thumbsup:

(hmmmm...where'd those dang cheerleading gals git off to now....dagnabbit, just when we need 'em...)

(http://troyjrtrojanfootball.com/ESW/Images/Animated%2520cheerleader%2520red%2520n%2520blue.gif?xcache=7546)


Thank YOU Cuppycake!!

:thumbsup: YAY Cuppycake :thumbsup:

  (http://i49.tinypic.com/2939jc5.gif) 
(http://i.imgur.com/ABHN2.jpg)   (http://i49.tinypic.com/14uj8lj.gif)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 06, 2012, 01:13:04 pm
    Letís start with the Russian/Iranian alliance.

Let's stop using 'biblical' sources which are self-referential, (which is a logical fallacy and rejected not only on that basis but, on the basis of a self-serving agenda of "it says so in the 'bible' and that's believed without question" - when it is questioned), and are loosely-interpreted as "prophesies".  Such dubious references have no foundation in reason and rely instead entirely upon belief and yes, blind faith.
  
    Now, when I watch the current events on the news, and hear of Russia and Iran becoming allies, and partners in Iranís nuclear program, and their threats (especially Iran) against Israel, I think of this chapter, and to me, at least, is evidence that this prophecy is correct.

Not only is your "evidence" specious, it does not constitute evidence according to the definition of that term.  What it does constitute is textual hearsay and hearsay is questionable 'witness' testimony, not evidence, (except perhaps of perjory).

"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of
their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science --or any honest intellectual inquiry."
-- Stephen J. Gould

I'm waiting for you to "debate" the rest of rghvac's response to you - I was surprised you didn't comment on any of the core comment with regards to history.  Thanks.

I've already challenged the assumptions posted in ę Reply #5 on: 02-06-2012, 19:29:49 Ľ Message ID: 546967.  The OP decided that the "debate" was over before it had begun.  

As for dubious biblical interpretations of "gog and magog" relating to any current events being "prophesies", the contextual references to events occurring at the time they were written of are being speciously-transposed to force-fit current events.  Throughout history, alliances have fluidly come and gone - yesterday's "enemy" becomes today's "friend", etc., (look at Japan & Germany vis`vie the U.S., for instance).  Such do not constitute "prophesy" unless a liberal dose of blind faith is applied to obscure reasoning abilities.

ďNothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.Ē
-- Voltaire
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 06, 2012, 01:21:52 pm
Well, I see that debating & discussing the issue is over, and the usual insults and attacks have begun. There is one thing that Iím curious about, however, and that is if you bible-bashers do have to face God someday ...

So now that the "usual insults and attacks have begun" as you say, just a few things that I am curious about.

Of course such was seen to begin when "rghvac69" began them ...
    
1.) Why call a non-believer a "Bible-basher" when you're the one attempting to "beat" others with your Bible?  Just because someone doesn't agree with you, or they challenge your thoughts...they are automatically entitled to be served hatred from you?   Maybe you should consider getting one of those moving graphics like falcon9 has of "beating a dead horse" only have a character "beating" others with a Bible, I'm sure it would be no time before several others would have to have one too.

I'm still trying to locate a .gif of a fundie beating/thumping some 'non-believer' with a bible - upon success, others will quickly know, (although I did find another related one ...)

  2.)  Which version of the Bible did you base your comments on?  I use many versions when studying while tending to rely most on the King James.  I ask because I cannot find any verses in any of those versions about there being any "lemonade", "fudge" or "pants" for that matter on Judgment Day.  Nothing about popcorn or any sort of "heavenly brew for you" either, sorry.  

You know how they've got books out like "Windows For Idiots", "Debating For Idiots", "Bible For ... "?

(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 06, 2012, 01:31:23 pm
    Letís start with the Russian/Iranian alliance.

Let's stop using 'biblical' sources which are self-referential, (which is a logical fallacy and rejected not only on that basis but, on the basis of a self-serving agenda of "it says so in the 'bible' and that's believed without question" - when it is questioned), and are loosely-interpreted as "prophesies".  Such dubious references have no foundation in reason and rely instead entirely upon belief and yes, blind faith.
  
    Now, when I watch the current events on the news, and hear of Russia and Iran becoming allies, and partners in Iranís nuclear program, and their threats (especially Iran) against Israel, I think of this chapter, and to me, at least, is evidence that this prophecy is correct.

Not only is your "evidence" specious, it does not constitute evidence according to the definition of that term.  What it does constitute is textual hearsay and hearsay is questionable 'witness' testimony, not evidence, (except perhaps of perjory).

"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of
their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science --or any honest intellectual inquiry."
-- Stephen J. Gould

I'm waiting for you to "debate" the rest of rghvac's response to you - I was surprised you didn't comment on any of the core comment with regards to history.  Thanks.

I've already challenged the assumptions posted in ę Reply #5 on: 02-06-2012, 19:29:49 Ľ Message ID: 546967.  The OP decided that the "debate" was over before it had begun.  

As for dubious biblical interpretations of "gog and magog" relating to any current events being "prophesies", the contextual references to events occurring at the time they were written of are being speciously-transposed to force-fit current events.  Throughout history, alliances have fluidly come and gone - yesterday's "enemy" becomes today's "friend", etc., (look at Japan & Germany vis`vie the U.S., for instance).  Such do not constitute "prophesy" unless a liberal dose of blind faith is applied to obscure reasoning abilities.

ďNothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.Ē
-- Voltaire

I agree you addressed his first and last parts.  Now you address the "gog" part.  However you still have not addressed the core middle 3 paragraphs.  You never not respond to anything like that, which makes me question you on this.  Either you can disprove him or you can't.  That's all I'm wondering.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 06, 2012, 01:42:22 pm
I agree you addressed his first and last parts.  Now you address the "gog" part.  However you still have not addressed the core middle 3 paragraphs.  You never not respond to anything like that, which makes me question you on this.  Either you can disprove him or you can't.  That's all I'm wondering.

Those paragraphs relied directly upon translated/retranslated/interpreted/reinterpreted 'biblical passages' which, as you're already aware, I regard as dubious reference sources at best.

(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: duroz on June 06, 2012, 02:05:57 pm

I'm still trying to locate a .gif of a fundie beating/thumping some 'non-believer' with a bible - upon success, others will quickly know, (although I did find another related one ...)

I believe you MAY perhaps find your desired images if you just look to the sea for a message bottle.....
(http://i.imgur.com/NG6dZ.jpg)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 06, 2012, 02:09:55 pm
I'm still trying to locate a .gif of a fundie beating/thumping some 'non-believer' with a bible - upon success, others will quickly know, (although I did find another related one ...)

I believe you MAY perhaps find your desired images if you just look to the sea for a message bottle.....
(http://i.imgur.com/NG6dZ.jpg)

One can never tell just what may wash up on-shore sometimes, (mostly it's kelp but, not always).
 :-X
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 06, 2012, 06:04:30 pm
I agree you addressed his first and last parts.  Now you address the "gog" part.  However you still have not addressed the core middle 3 paragraphs.  You never not respond to anything like that, which makes me question you on this.  Either you can disprove him or you can't.  That's all I'm wondering.

Those paragraphs relied directly upon translated/retranslated/interpreted/reinterpreted 'biblical passages' which, as you're already aware, I regard as dubious reference sources at best.

(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)

I'll take it then, that you are unable to disprove them.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 06, 2012, 06:15:31 pm
Those paragraphs relied directly upon translated/retranslated/interpreted/reinterpreted 'biblical passages' which, as you're already aware, I regard as dubious reference sources at best.

(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)

I'll take it then, that you are unable to disprove them.  Thanks!

That's the second inaccurate assumption you've made within minutes of one another.  The burden of proof rests with the one making the claim, (that would be the OP), not with the one challenging that claim, (nor by logical fallacy 'challenges' to "disprove" someone else's unproven claim).
In realizing that you've previously demonstrated a distinct unfamilarity with logical fallacies, the opportunity to emphasize when you've done it again was taken.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Falconer02 on June 07, 2012, 02:21:46 am
Quote
I'll take it then, that you are unable to disprove them.  Thanks!

"The majority of the prophecies were false, but this 1 is vaguely true if you interpret it my way, therefore the bible is infallible."

I've seen people who speak to ghosts make more accurate predictions. If we're seriously going to dive this deep into hokey ideas, then I believe Nostradamus should be added to the discussion since his predictions, when interpreted in specific ways, have been fairly more accurate than xtian doctrine.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 07, 2012, 02:40:58 am
Quote
I'll take it then, that you are unable to disprove them.  Thanks!

"The majority of the prophecies were false, but this 1 is vaguely true if you interpret it my way, therefore the bible is infallible!"

I've seen people who speak to ghosts make more accurate predictions. If we're seriously going to dive this deep into hokey ideas, then I believe Nostradamus should be added to the discussion since his predictions, when interpreted in specific ways, have been fairly more accurate than xtian doctrine.

Although I can't be completely certain of this, it would seem likely that the xtians might prefer the "predictions" of Edward Casey, (due to his inherent bias).

" ... there shall come a time (not saying when) of great trials (not the O.J. one or, any specific case) and gnashings of teeth (who doesn't like the dramatic hyperbole of teeth-gnashings?) and in such dark days (even though days are periods of 'light', it's hyperbole, man) the invisible pink unicorn (wondered where that dude has been ...) shall touch his horn upon (whoa, nothing inappropriate there) the world (whew) and find it wicked (like that's any different than any other age) and pass (gas?) judgement upon it (whew again)."
-- not attributed to Nostradamus.
 :o
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 07, 2012, 10:44:05 am
Since this thread is about the second coming, it's very helpful to know the timeline of events, prophesied even from Old Testament history through Revelation in the New Testament history, and which applies to today and beyond.  If anyone is interested, here is an illustrated timeline of the second coming, according to Revelation and other books of the Bible:

 http://www.thesecondcomingofchrist.org/rev01_timelines.htm   


Here's the first example given of one of the charted timelines, with explanations:

Revelation: Chapter 1 Timelines

The timelines used on this site are intended to aid the reader in understanding the order, extent, and concurrent events that are presented in the many prophetic passages in the Bible.  The reader is encouraged to see the webpage on this site to see the explaination of the timelines used on this site.  The following contains a portion of that webpage.

The timelines used in this website are general in nature and every effort has been made to assure their accurate depiction of the prophetic passages.  However, there are instances where attempting to be precise is unattainable with the tools available and due to the rise of clutter to the charts rather than clarity with too much detail.  These limitations are noted as they occur within this site.  Since these are generalized timelines, in many cases, intervals of time along the horizontal do not portray equal intervals of time, only the relative occurrence of one event with another.  In all cases, it is incumbent upon the reader to search the scriptures out for himself or herself, and evaluate the content of this site or any other source against what the Word of God says.

As with all timelines, the one used on this site begins with a very simple horizontal bar, as seen in the following graphic.  The book of Daniel helps in understanding prophecy in the Bible for many reasons.  The first reason is that the Lord reveals to Daniel, King Nebuchadnezzar, and to all peoples, His plan for the ages.  Beginning with Daniel 1, Daniel as a young man is carried away with other well-learned and skilled men and women away from Jerusalem to Babylon.  After some years of training, Daniel and his fellow Jews, and friends, completed their training and were matriculated within the Babylonian system of advisors to the king.  Within the verses of Daniel 2 are tremendous revelations concerning the major kingdoms that exist at the time of the prophesy revealed to Daniel by the Lord, and another three kingdoms that would follow.  Why were there only four kingdoms are identified in this prophesy?  Why was the revealed prophetic timeline truncated?  King Nebuchadnezzar's military conquests against Judah and Jerusalem, and not with Assyria, Egypt, or other great historical kingdoms, are key to understanding prophecy.  First, though the northern tribes had already been taken captive by the Assyrians much earlier than Nebuchadnezzar's conquest against Judah, the key to prophecy with regard to the nation of Israel is the land it was promised, Jerusalem, and the temple.  The earlier times, or other great world dynasties, such as in China, or other continents in the world are not considered, since they neither trampled underfoot, nor either controlled or significantly influenced the affairs in Jerusalem.  Jerusalem as a key in understanding prophecy is brought out in the prophetic timeline revealed to Daniel by the angel Gabriel, Daniel 9:21-25, in which the 70 prophetic weeks (490 years, see this discussion in this site on Daniel 9) begins with the order to restore and build Jerusalem, not just the temple.  As shown in Daniel 2:36-38, the era of the Gentiles began with the three military campaigns of King Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem, and will not end until the return of Jesus Christ to establish His millennial kingdom, as shown in Revelation 19:11-21 with the Lord's return and in Revelation 20, which is the Lord's reign on earth. 

The following graphic builds upon the basic timeline above, and illustrates the critical historical events and prophetic events yet to occur relative to the church age.  The date of this writing is still the church age, and serves as a reference point to much of what is written in this website.  As shown in the Lord's first earthly ministry, He had said that Jerusalem would continue to be trodden down by the Gentiles until their time was fulfilled, which again is the end of the seven years of tribulation, which is Armageddon.  This is the time of the Lord's return for His second advent, but at that time it will not be as a humble servant as the first time, but as King of kings and Lord of lords.  This is shown by the solid black arrow from left to right between the yellow oval with the scriptural reference to Luke 21:20-23, and the quotation of the scripture that appears in the yellow box.  The arrow head indicates the fulfillment of the Gentile age.

http://www.thesecondcomingofchrist.org/images/graphic-tl-1a.gif

http://www.thesecondcomingofchrist.org/images/timeline_all_critic_dates_gentile_age.gif

There are more in-depth timelines - these are just the basic first 2 of them.

I also want to say that I know a couple of you do not agree with this, and that is fine.  You can respond however you wish and that is fine, too.  I already expect disagreeing and/or answers given to make this look unreal and foolish.  That is the prerogative of those who disagree and make it known.  Whatever responses are given, your answers will be treated with respect and hopefully yours are also given with respect.

There are some, though, who do agree with this, and many who want to know more about His second coming.  It's not an easy subject to learn, but it definitely helps to learn about it and know more about what will happen when it comes. 
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 07, 2012, 11:58:33 pm
Since this thread is about the second coming ...

Since this thread was posted in the debate & discuss subforum and you've elected to cut&paste, note that any rebuttal is directed toward the material which was c&p'd, (not the one who posted it - a distinction to bear in mind).

"However, there are instances where attempting to be precise is unattainable with the tools available and due to the rise of clutter to the charts rather than clarity with too much detail. Since these are generalized timelines, in many cases, intervals of time along the horizontal do not portray equal intervals of time, only the relative occurrence of one event with another." 

Just to clarify the above paragraph; the writer is attempting to equate "generalized timelines" with evidence of specific "prophesies" and present it as supporting evidence for events which haven't happened yet?  The 'explanation' for any 'prophetic inaccuracies', (and they all are), given is that precision "is unattainable with the tools available and due to the rise of clutter ...".  Let's see, what exactly would those "tools" consist of?  One can only speculate that they don't include reasoning from a valid premise or, such nit-picky little things like tangible evidence, otherwise such would be provided.


I also want to say that I know a couple of you do not agree with this, and that is fine.  You can respond however you wish and that is fine, too. 

You say it's fine but, is it dandy too - fine and dandy?  Because without the dandy, fine just isn't as sincere-sounding.
 :o

I already expect disagreeing and/or answers given to make this look unreal and foolish.  That is the prerogative of those who disagree and make it known.  Whatever responses are given, your answers will be treated with respect and hopefully yours are also given with respect.

Uh-huh well, given previous responses, (some as recently as less than three hours before posting the above contention.  That tends to make the contention somewhat dubious, (c.f.; ę Reply #44 on: Today at 19:49:01 Ľ Message ID: 549960, "Daily bible ..." thread).  The nature of the cut&pasted material itself is enough to "make this look unreal and foolish" under medium-close examination, (closer examination would no doubt bring more detailed rebuttal to the fore).  As for me, others may wish to argue about 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' type of "debates" however, my response has always been that if someone claims there are such things, let them produce evidence of it firest before counting hypothetically-dancing "angels", (or claims of strolls across unfrozen H2O).
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 08, 2012, 07:12:50 am

Quote from: jcribb16 on June 07, 2012, 10:44:05 am
I also want to say that I know a couple of you do not agree with this, and that is fine.  You can respond however you wish and that is fine, too.

Quote from: falcon9:
You say it's fine but, is it dandy too - fine and dandy?  Because without the dandy, fine just isn't as sincere-sounding.
  :o

It's fine and dandy!  Thank you for your in-depth response and thoughts on this.   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: JediJohnnie on June 08, 2012, 12:07:51 pm
I always find it amusing how Atheists (in my case,usually Falconer)will whine and complain that you're not "defending" your opinion with facts,then when you do,they have astonishingly little to say in reply.lol
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Falconer02 on June 08, 2012, 01:31:45 pm
Quote
I always find it amusing how Atheists (in my case,usually Falconer)will whine and complain that you're not "defending" your opinion with facts,then when you do,they have astonishingly little to say in reply.lol

Showing the usage of obvious logical fallacies are facts though. If you're referring to my first post in this thread, a simple google search is all it takes to find the statistics. Otherwise, the list was just based upon common sense.The prophecies are fiction and the freethinkers (including me) have already countered the arguments by showing these prophecies are false. I'm under the impression that you completely failed to read the thread and, as usual, like to name call and lie (just like a good xtian would...). If you have questions about what I have said in the past, please quote them and I'll kindly be more specific.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 08, 2012, 02:48:39 pm
I also want to say that I know a couple of you do not agree with this, and that is fine.  You can respond however you wish and that is fine, too.

You say it's fine but, is it dandy too - fine and dandy?  Because without the dandy, fine just isn't as sincere-sounding.
  :o

It's fine and dandy!  Thank you for your in-depth response and thoughts on this.   :thumbsup:

If such in-depth responses are both fine and dandy, wouldn't replies which discuss them follow so as not to be 'hit-and-run' proclamations?

"If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question."
-- anon
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: loulizlee on June 08, 2012, 07:24:16 pm
Chirp, chirp, chirp (oh, better not do that; it upsets people).  You are ramping up the humor again, eh, Falcon9?  And don't say this is a hit and run.  I am all over the place (just like you).
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 08, 2012, 07:27:55 pm
Chirp, chirp, chirp (oh, better not do that; it upsets people). 

No, it's trolling, (with non-contextual nonsense, in a sort of 'second coming' of your trolling).  Whether or not it "upsets" people like the forum moderator is the only relevant point.

You are ramping up the humor again, eh, Falcon9?  And don't say this is a hit and run.  I am all over the place (just like you).

The cognizant difference is that my posts are significantly more contextual than yours, (something you'll notice while trying to reach 30 contributory posts for that monthly bonus).
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: loulizlee on June 08, 2012, 07:33:33 pm
And what is always needing to the last word called?  Psychological immaturity.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 08, 2012, 07:36:13 pm
And what is always needing to the last word called?  Psychological immaturity.

If there'd been no reply to that, it would apply to the one attempting such, (you).  Since I've elected to reply to mention that, it becomes your choice to reply or not to this response.

What a conundrum, eh?

ďThe meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.Ē
-- Richard Dawkins
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: alaric99x on June 08, 2012, 10:35:51 pm
Well falcon9, you're a true and skilled logician; as an old soldier, I salute you.  I must confess, I'm basically on here for those 30 posts, so i hope you'll excuse me if I'm not as active here as you are.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 09, 2012, 12:44:04 am
Well falcon9, you're a true and skilled logician; as an old soldier, I salute you.  I must confess, I'm basically on here for those 30 posts, so i hope you'll excuse me if I'm not as active here as you are.

Danke schŲn.  In high school, someone did write in my yearbook, "Good luck you illegitimate son of Spock." (At first, I'd though they'd written a word that starts with a "b" instead of an "S").
 :o
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: gaylasue on June 11, 2012, 06:36:54 am
I would like to be on earth when the Lord comes back for the church.  I think it would be the experience of a lifetime.  Even if the Lord decides to take me on home to heaven before his return, I'll still be there for eternity with Him and my loved ones that made the decision to take Glory instead of Hell for eternity.  If you do miss the first trip, you will have another chance during the great tribulation period, but if your heart has hardened you during this lifetime, circumstances may change your mind during the tribulation.  God will give you a chance until the door is shut forever.....
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: albefish on June 11, 2012, 08:16:47 am
Yes, it will happen in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 11, 2012, 12:25:40 pm
I would like to be on earth when the Lord comes back for the church.  

There is no evidence to support such specious beliefs.  Why are they being proselytized?
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
"When faith becomes blind it dies.Ē
-- Mahatma Gandhi
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: HuffmanFamilyof4 on June 11, 2012, 01:42:35 pm
anyone that believes that crap is brain washed. if there really was a god or jesus or even a christ. then why does bad things keep happening to good people and good things happening to Bad people. I keep hearing it's gods way..buy that is B.S. sorry but no such person, place or thing. I've been to hell and back(HELL,Mi.) and even in heaven with my wife,you'll never be able to prove it any other way. the BIBLE is written by Man and church is there for the owner to be paid for giving you a brain wash. that's all I have to say on that matter
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 11, 2012, 03:59:28 pm
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, thoughts, and opinions.  Thank the Lord for that. 
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 11, 2012, 04:04:24 pm
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, thoughts, and opinions.  Thank the Lord for that. 

The attribution is an assumed one, based upon no evidence.

"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Scriptures, n. The sacred books of 'our holy religion', as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which
all other faiths are based."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Falconer02 on June 11, 2012, 05:03:31 pm
"If I didn't know about your god and what he deems bad, would I go to hell?"
"No, not if you did not know."
"Then why did you tell me?"

(http://www.unsere-sommerparty.de/gb/templates/default/images/smilies/smiley_smug.gif)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 11, 2012, 05:10:02 pm
"If I didn't know about your god and what he deems bad, would I go to hell?"
"No, not if you did not know."
"Then why did you tell me?"

(http://www.unsere-sommerparty.de/gb/templates/default/images/smilies/smiley_smug.gif)

It must be due to that, (false), inherent assumption the proselytizers make about their g-d's rules retroactively applying to people who never heard of that egregore, (especially before two millenia ago), as well as post hoc unawareness.  Such inherent assumptions as religious adherents make would be sanctimonious, (whether they were previously aware of this or not), under similar 'assumptions'.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: gaylasue on June 13, 2012, 09:10:54 am
I don't want to miss the rapture for anything on this earth!  I'm praying the Lord will let me be a part of it first hand, but if that isn't His will and I pass on first, I will get to come out of the grave before the living that will be called to Glory in the rapture.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 13, 2012, 10:46:07 am
I don't want to miss the rapture for anything on this earth!  I'm praying the Lord will let me be a part of it first hand, but if that isn't His will and I pass on first, I will get to come out of the grave before the living that will be called to Glory in the rapture.

No worries; there's no evidence to support such specious beliefs.  Although the rising out of the grave zombie apocalypse thing reminds one that the Walking Dead season premiere will begin before an equally fictional "rapture".

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
-- Gene Roddenberry
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 13, 2012, 07:40:51 pm
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, thoughts, and opinions.  Thank the Lord for that. 

The attribution is an assumed one, based upon no evidence.

"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Scriptures, n. The sacred books of 'our holy religion', as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which
all other faiths are based."
-- Ambrose Bierce

Feel better with those nonsense responses?   Some choose to deny evidence because they know they would then have to acknowledge there is a God.  If there is God, then they would come under conviction, and to many, that is just unacceptable.  Those quotes don't do a thing to try and convince believers that their God is not real.  They are both amusing and sad attempts to mock and belittle believers, but to no avail.  But, many believers know you enjoy posting them anyway, so knock yourself out doing so. 
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: anitaraemillspalmer on June 13, 2012, 07:53:58 pm
I don't want to miss the rapture for anything on this earth!  I'm praying the Lord will let me be a part of it first hand, but if that isn't His will and I pass on first, I will get to come out of the grave before the living that will be called to Glory in the rapture.

No worries; there's no evidence to support such specious beliefs.  Although the rising out of the grave zombie apocalypse thing reminds one that the Walking Dead season premiere will begin before an equally fictional "rapture".

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
-- Gene Roddenberry
My thoughts and beliefs...no one will know when the second coming is going to happen. The bible is a guide that tells us what to look for when the end of days are close.  I believe whole heartedly in God and his son Jesus...Jesus gave his life so our sins may be forgiven...Please folks don't take this for granted.  Don't gamble away your salvation.  Say you bet on there is no God, no Devil...no Heaven...no Hell...and that ends up being false...  :angel12: then you are going to HELL, where as, if you believe  :peace: and there is a Heaven, just think of the glory you will experience in Heaven. God Bless  :heart:
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Falconer02 on June 13, 2012, 07:59:59 pm
Quote
Some choose to deny evidence because they know they would then have to acknowledge there is a God.

Quite the contrary seeing how atheism is built upon the fact that there isn't a logical argument for a defined deity. We would have no quarrel in saying "Okay, there is a god/goddess/gods. We were wrong." if there was overwhelming evidence that could surpass kid-like skepticism. However, even if this specific defined god did exist, most people who value morality and logic would refuse to worship an imperfect and evil deity. Ninkasi however would be a completely acceptable goddess to worship if she randomly appeared one day!  :)

Quote
Say you bet on there is no God, no Devil...no Heaven...no Hell...and that ends up being false...   then you are going to HELL, where as, if you believe   and there is a Heaven, just think of the glory you will experience in Heaven.

This argument you introduce is known as "Pascal's Wager", and the major problem with this reasoning is it does not take into account the other major/minor religions throughout the world that sit on the exact scale as your own. The major fault in this reasoning is in order to "play it safe", one would have to be involved in practicing several or all religions.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 13, 2012, 08:09:50 pm
Feel better with those nonsense responses? 

What's 'nonsensical' is the complete failure of some to realize that "faith" = a belief for which there is no evidence.  Emphasizing that fact is not "nonsence" and suggesting that it is is irrational.

Some choose to deny evidence because they know they would then have to acknowledge there is a God. 

What exact and incontrovertible evidence are you referring to?

If there is God, then they would come under conviction, and to many, that is just unacceptable. 

"If" means that some possibility or probability exists for the hypothesis.  The remark begs the question; 'what if there is no g-d, would that be as "unacceptable" to the true believers who'd have to come to terms with putting faith into a self-delusion?'

Those quotes don't do a thing to try and convince believers that their God is not real. 

Neither do repetitious biblical quotes written by superstitious goat-herders do anything whatsoever to convince rational non-believers that an alleged 'g-d' is "real", (sans any valid evidence).

They are both amusing and sad attempts to mock and belittle believers, but to no avail.  But, many believers know you enjoy posting them anyway, so knock yourself out doing so.  [/color]

The ad hominems presented in lieu of evidence to support such specious claims imply desparation.  Why be so concerned if nothing can be said to sway a blind faith?

ďThe meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.Ē
-- Richard Dawkins
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 14, 2012, 12:05:00 pm

Quote from: jcribb16 on June 13, 2012, 07:40:51 pm
Those quotes don't do a thing to try and convince believers that their God is not real.

Quote from: falcon9:
Neither do repetitious biblical quotes written by superstitious goat-herders do anything whatsoever to convince rational non-believers that an alleged 'g-d' is "real", (sans any valid evidence).

"Superstitious goat-herders?"  Careful now, you are getting personal with calling names of believers.  There's no need for that. 


Quote from: jcribb16 on June 13, 2012, 07:40:51 pm
They are both amusing and sad attempts to mock and belittle believers, but to no avail.  But, many believers know you enjoy posting them anyway, so knock yourself out doing so. 

Quote from: falcon9:
The ad hominems presented in lieu of evidence to support such specious claims imply desparation.  Why be so concerned if nothing can be said to sway a blind faith?

I'm not concerned for me, and for a few others to try and be swayed from our faith in God.  It's newbie posters and/or newbie believers who come in wanting to share their beliefs, views (in the Religious Debate threads,) and/or Bible verses (in the Off Topic threads) that are knocked for a loop when you make your same ole, same ole comments with your fancy big words, mocking and belittling their every remark or verses.  Some do not know how to take that kind of sarcasm and "beating" and it's unfair when they feel cautious about entering any religious thread, because they learn you are waiting for someone to comment so you can pounce.  It's unfair it's done to a point that many leave FC because they feel mocked and belittled when they just wanted to post like everyone else to earn a bonus. 

There are many other threads they can post in, this is true, but when their lives are centered around God, and they want to share with other believers, those are the type threads they automatically gravitate to.  Little do they know what's waiting for them - that's the concern I'm speaking of.   Debate threads on religion are different - enter at your own risk, I agree.  Bible verse threads in Off Topic are not enter at your own risk and posters shouldn't have to feel cautious to enter those or avoid the very ones they would enjoy posting in. 
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 14, 2012, 12:33:08 pm
Quote from: jcribb16 on June 13, 2012, 07:40:51 pm
"Superstitious goat-herders?"  Careful now, you are getting personal with calling names of believers.  There's no need for that.  

Back when the various chapters of the various versions of the bible were being cobbled-together, people were goat-herders and very superstitious so, that's not actually "name-calling" inasmuch as it's accurately-descriptive.


Quote from: jcribb16 on June 13, 2012, 07:40:51 pm:
"They are both amusing and sad attempts to mock and belittle believers, but to no avail.  But, many believers know you enjoy posting them anyway, so knock yourself out doing so."  

Quote from: falcon9:
The ad hominems presented in lieu of evidence to support such specious claims imply desparation.  Why be so concerned if nothing can be said to sway a blind faith?

I'm not concerned for me, and for a few others to try and be swayed from our faith in God.  It's newbie posters and/or newbie believers who come in wanting to share their beliefs, views (in the Religious Debate threads,) and/or Bible verses (in the Off Topic threads) that are knocked for a loop when you make your same ole, same ole comments ...

When you proselytizers/envangelists/bible-thumpers come up with xome new material, the responses may vary.  Why should others go out of their way to vary responses when what's being responded to remains monotously the same?
 
 Some do not know how to take that kind of sarcasm and "beating" and it's unfair when they feel cautious about entering any religious thread, because they learn you are waiting for someone to comment so you can pounce.  It's unfair it's done to a point that many leave FC because they feel mocked and belittled when they just wanted to post like everyone else to earn a bonus.

Well, that's life.  Since FC is neither some exclusive xtian or non-believer 'countryclub', (nor a place for unchallenged religious pronouncements, evangelizing/proselytizing/bible-thumping), it remains optional for members to read or post on the forums.

There are many other threads they can post in, this is true, but when their lives are centered around God, and they want to share with other believers, those are the type threads they automatically gravitate to.

That's nice.  So, when someone else does not share such superstitious beliefs and posts in challenge/opposition/refutation, that's not okay because it's a one-way street to religious fundamentalists?  Pfft.

Little do they know what's waiting for them - that's the concern I'm speaking of.   Debate threads on religion are different - enter at your own risk, I agree.

It remains the option of new and old members alike to read a forum's threads before just jumping right in with specious nonsense.  Especially in the d+d subforum of Off Topic.
 
Bible verse threads in Off Topic are not enter at your own risk and posters shouldn't have to feel cautious to enter those or avoid the very ones they would enjoy posting in.

Off topic threads do occasionally get moved by the FC moderators to the Debate & Discuss subforum of teh Off Topic forum.  This should be a large hint that d+d is connected to Off Topic by way of being a subforum of that forum. "Off topic" means that forum is a catch-all for anything not applicable to other topic-specific forums, (although those are often 'spammed' by completley out of context religious remarks).  The Off Topic forum is not some sort of sanctuary or, 'safe haven' for xtian bible-thumpers/evangelists/proselytizers.  Anyone who wishes to post in these forums may do so within the FC TOS and posting policies, (not some arbitrary xtian-strictures).
                     (http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 14, 2012, 12:49:45 pm
Quote from: jcribb16 on June 13, 2012, 07:40:51 pm
"Superstitious goat-herders?"  Careful now, you are getting personal with calling names of believers.  There's no need for that.  

Back when the various chapters of the various versions of the bible were being cobbled-together, people were goat-herders and very superstitious so, that's not actually "name-calling" inasmuch as it's accurately-descriptive.


Quote from: jcribb16 on June 13, 2012, 07:40:51 pm:
"They are both amusing and sad attempts to mock and belittle believers, but to no avail.  But, many believers know you enjoy posting them anyway, so knock yourself out doing so."  

Quote from: falcon9:
The ad hominems presented in lieu of evidence to support such specious claims imply desparation.  Why be so concerned if nothing can be said to sway a blind faith?

I'm not concerned for me, and for a few others to try and be swayed from our faith in God.  It's newbie posters and/or newbie believers who come in wanting to share their beliefs, views (in the Religious Debate threads,) and/or Bible verses (in the Off Topic threads) that are knocked for a loop when you make your same ole, same ole comments ...

When you proselytizers/envangelists/bible-thumpers come up with xome new material, the responses may vary.  Why should others go out of their way to vary responses when what's being responded to remains monotously the same?
 
 Some do not know how to take that kind of sarcasm and "beating" and it's unfair when they feel cautious about entering any religious thread, because they learn you are waiting for someone to comment so you can pounce.  It's unfair it's done to a point that many leave FC because they feel mocked and belittled when they just wanted to post like everyone else to earn a bonus.

Well, that's life.  Since FC is neither some exclusive xtian or non-believer 'countryclub', (nor a place for unchallenged religious pronouncements, evangelizing/proselytizing/bible-thumping), it remains optional for members to read or post on the forums.

There are many other threads they can post in, this is true, but when their lives are centered around God, and they want to share with other believers, those are the type threads they automatically gravitate to.

That's nice.  So, when someone else does not share such superstitious beliefs and posts in challenge/opposition/refutation, that's not okay because it's a one-way street to religious fundamentalists?  Pfft.

Little do they know what's waiting for them - that's the concern I'm speaking of.   Debate threads on religion are different - enter at your own risk, I agree.

It remains the option of new and old members alike to read a forum's threads before just jumping right in with specious nonsense.  Especially in the d+d subforum of Off Topic.
 
Bible verse threads in Off Topic are not enter at your own risk and posters shouldn't have to feel cautious to enter those or avoid the very ones they would enjoy posting in.

Off topic threads do occasionally get moved by the FC moderators to the Debate & Discuss subforum of teh Off Topic forum.  This should be a large hint that d+d is connected to Off Topic by way of being a subforum of that forum. "Off topic" means that forum is a catch-all for anything not applicable to other topic-specific forums, (although those are often 'spammed' by completley out of context religious remarks).  The Off Topic forum is not some sort of sanctuary or, 'safe haven' for xtian bible-thumpers/evangelists/proselytizers.  Anyone who wishes to post in these forums may do so within the FC TOS and posting policies, (not some arbitrary xtian-strictures).
                     (http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)

And folks, there we have it.  You seem to totally disrespect the whole idea of respect of others when it comes to anything religious.  Debate and Discuss is one thing, but to continually disrespect simple Bible verse threads/posters, is not following TOS, no matter how you cut it.  Those who don't believe in the scripture, and come in there, just to turn the thread upside down, being mean-spirited and mocking, are doing it for just those reasons.  They can't stand the idea that Christians or believers are sharing something about God and will do anything to break that up.  You, for one, have no respect for the scriptures, yet deliberately bait and mock others who do.  You insert yourself into sharing of scriptures you have no idea of knowing about.  Christians are warned of things like this.  So, when you do come in some threads doing what you do, because you have the "right to be disrespectful," then anyone else will have that same right to give right back to you what you dish out, in standing up for their beliefs and for showing your ignorance and disrespect towards Christians and believers.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 14, 2012, 01:14:59 pm
And folks, there we have it.

What, you're obvious inability to comprehend the replies to your assumptions that such bible-thumping/evangelism/proselytizing should get a 'free pass' and go unchallenged simply because you deem such challenges to be "disrespectful"?  What happens when others deem such proselytizings as 'disrespectful' to non-believers, (or, to the believers of other faiths)?  Such one-wayism are disrepectful affronts to reason.
  
You seem to totally disrespect the whole idea of respect of others when it comes to anything religious.

This is the debate & discuss subforum; you already know it's an "enter at your own risk" venue and yet, keep playing that same song, (as if one can demand respect, rather than earn it).
 
Debate and Discuss is one thing, but to continually disrespect simple Bible verse threads/posters, is not following TOS, no matter how you cut it.

That's for an FC moderator to decide, not you or I.  We can both 'interpret' the Terms of Service in this regard but, any final arbitration is FC's.  You happen to be the second one today to 'threaten' me with such without a clear violation of the FC TOS, (beyond your biased interpretation of the "Golden Rule" policy).

You, for one, have no respect for the scriptures, yet deliberately bait and mock others who do.

However you choose to characterize challenges to blind faith is up to you.  So too is it your choice not to meet such challenges by tossing-up these appeals to respect in lieu of addressing the matter of "faith" being a belief which lacks supporting evidence.
 
So, when you do come in some threads doing what you do, because you have the "right to be disrespectful," then anyone else will have that same right to give right back to you what you dish out, in standing up for their beliefs and for showing your ignorance and disrespect towards Christians and believers.

What are you going to do, 'disrepect' the ability to reason?  Perhaps you mean to 'mock' rationality or, deride critical thinking skills?  Carry on, that would be ironically-amusing.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 14, 2012, 01:31:01 pm
When it comes to Christians, you already "disrespect" their ability to reason, by mocking their reasoning because they do believe in God.  You already "mock" their rationality by trying to make them appear irrational because they believe in God.  You already "deride" their critical thinking skills by trying to make them appear foolish and unable to think outside of their "God" choice in life.  I'm not impressed with your goading of me or others with respect to Christianity or our belief in God.  You are the one making yourself look ridiculous with your little quotes and pictures and disrespect of peoples' choice of believing in God.  It's not your business anyway, when you get down to it - in real life, everyone makes their choices, and you are just a "poster" on the other side of the screen trying to make Christians look unreasonable, irrational, and unable to think critically.  We are technically all "posters" on the other side of the screen.  But respect is a key word with any debate, no matter what the discussion is, and that is something you sorely lack with Christians - that's really sad you seem to dislike the idea of Christianity so much that you feel you must continually bash Christians regarding their God, beliefs, and their Bible. 
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 14, 2012, 01:51:06 pm
When it comes to Christians, you already "disrespect" their ability to reason, by mocking their reasoning because they do believe in God.

How can something which hasn't been applied to such a belief be mocked? Instead, my challenges have been to the opposite; a distinct lack of reasoning applied to such religious beliefs.

You already "mock" their rationality by trying to make them appear irrational because they believe in God. 

Again, how can something which hasn't been applied to such a belief be mocked? Are you actually implicitly suggesting that such a belief is rational?  Please explain how such "faith", (which means a "belief" in that which lacks substantive evidence), is either not irrational or, is somehow rational.

You already "deride" their critical thinking skills by trying to make them appear foolish and unable to think outside of their "God" choice in life. 

Are you deriding my standard policy to challenge any blind faith, (whether it's in a religious or, secular concept)?  That seems a bit 'disrespectful', if so.

... trying to make Christians look unreasonable, irrational, and unable to think critically.  

I can assure you that such does not take as much effort as implied due to the assistance of such xtian proselytizers as yourself.  I'd thank you for that but, that would be disingenuous of me.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Abrupt on June 14, 2012, 01:52:39 pm
When it comes to Christians, you already "disrespect" their ability to reason, by mocking their reasoning because they do believe in God.  You already "mock" their rationality by trying to make them appear irrational because they believe in God.  You already "deride" their critical thinking skills by trying to make them appear foolish and unable to think outside of their "God" choice in life.  I'm not impressed with your goading of me or others with respect to Christianity or our belief in God.  You are the one making yourself look ridiculous with your little quotes and pictures and disrespect of peoples' choice of believing in God.  It's not your business anyway, when you get down to it - in real life, everyone makes their choices, and you are just a "poster" on the other side of the screen trying to make Christians look unreasonable, irrational, and unable to think critically.  We are technically all "posters" on the other side of the screen.  But respect is a key word with any debate, no matter what the discussion is, and that is something you sorely lack with Christians - that's really sad you seem to dislike the idea of Christianity so much that you feel you must continually bash Christians regarding their God, beliefs, and their Bible. 

I agree with you and sometimes wonder if he is as blind to what he says as it appears, or is he simply trolling.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 14, 2012, 02:05:26 pm
I agree with you and sometimes wonder if he is as blind to what he says as it appears, or is he simply trolling.

While it's unsurprising for one xtian to agree with another, (what's actually somewhat more surprising is when they don't agree - and not in the "how-many-angels-can-dance-upon-pinheads" sense), I'm not the one blinded by religious "faith" here.  As for "trolling", your manifest penchant for accusing others of what you do has been long-apparent.  Characterizing the presentation of opposing viewpoints as "trolling" is, ironically, an over-used tactic of those who've lost debates but, are loath to admit it.  Seriously, your enlarged ego won't implode if you did admit it.  My normal-sized "ego" hasn't imploded yet from admitting where I was in error or, 'lost' a debate.  Unfortunately for you, I haven't 'lost' one yet on these forums, (an event no doubt greatly anticipated by some).
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 14, 2012, 02:06:37 pm
When it comes to Christians, you already "disrespect" their ability to reason, by mocking their reasoning because they do believe in God.  You already "mock" their rationality by trying to make them appear irrational because they believe in God.  You already "deride" their critical thinking skills by trying to make them appear foolish and unable to think outside of their "God" choice in life.  I'm not impressed with your goading of me or others with respect to Christianity or our belief in God.  You are the one making yourself look ridiculous with your little quotes and pictures and disrespect of peoples' choice of believing in God.  It's not your business anyway, when you get down to it - in real life, everyone makes their choices, and you are just a "poster" on the other side of the screen trying to make Christians look unreasonable, irrational, and unable to think critically.  We are technically all "posters" on the other side of the screen.  But respect is a key word with any debate, no matter what the discussion is, and that is something you sorely lack with Christians - that's really sad you seem to dislike the idea of Christianity so much that you feel you must continually bash Christians regarding their God, beliefs, and their Bible. 

I agree with you and sometimes wonder if he is as blind to what he says as it appears, or is he simply trolling.
All I know is that some posters have had enough of this mocking and belittling of Christians with regards to their belief in God, thinking that some Christians are going to just sit back and take it.  Forget the "ignore" button.  Christians aren't cowards and are not going to hide behind an "ignore" button.  Disrespect towards Christians is going overboard in here.

 There are others who will actually discuss and debate, with both sides giving views, challenging views, and offering rebuttals, and asking questions.  However, outside of those others, Christians are consistently being "labeled" names that are wrong, unfair, and plain disrespectful.  Trolling seems possible; bullying is a term someone used also.  Both are not nice and break the rules of respect to others in here.  

Thanks for your response.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Abrupt on June 14, 2012, 02:26:27 pm
I agree with you and sometimes wonder if he is as blind to what he says as it appears, or is he simply trolling.

While it's unsurprising for one xtian to agree with another, (what's actually somewhat more surprising is when they don't agree - and not in the "how-many-angels-can-dance-upon-pinheads" sense), I'm not the one blinded by religious "faith" here.  As for "trolling", your manifest penchant for accusing others of what you do has been long-apparent.  Characterizing the presentation of opposing viewpoints as "trolling" is, ironically, an over-used tactic of those who've lost debates but, are loath to admit it.  Seriously, your enlarged ego won't implode if you did admit it.  My normal-sized "ego" hasn't imploded yet from admitting where I was in error or, 'lost' a debate.  Unfortunately for you, I haven't 'lost' one yet on these forums, (an event no doubt greatly anticipated by some).

Again you accuse me of exactly what you do and suggest that it is me that falsely accuses you of this.  Such would be unbelievable if I didn't see it here.  My ego?  I will have you know that I have learned the lessons of pride a long, long time ago and that I don't hold myself to this high regard as you imagine (and do you even understand why you see it in the way you describe?  I do -- it is because that is your internal considerations towards yourself and your confusion regarding how is it that I continue to best you and make you look foolish.  What you don't seem to have considered at all is that it isn't me making you look foolish -- it is you.  It isn't my ego that is inflated, it is yours that has felt itself deflated.  How do I know this?  It is quite simple as it is revealed oh so clearly in the particular choice of words and arrangement that you made here.)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Abrupt on June 14, 2012, 02:34:19 pm
All I know is that some posters have had enough of this mocking and belittling of Christians with regards to their belief in God, thinking that some Christians are going to just sit back and take it.  Forget the "ignore" button.  Christians aren't cowards and are not going to hide behind an "ignore" button.  Disrespect towards Christians is going overboard in here.

 There are others who will actually discuss and debate, with both sides giving views, challenging views, and offering rebuttals, and asking questions.  However, outside of those others, Christians are consistently being "labeled" names that are wrong, unfair, and plain disrespectful.  Trolling seems possible; bullying is a term someone used also.  Both are not nice and break the rules of respect to others in here.  

Thanks for your response.

I am like you in that his actions will not force me away and will only anchor me to stand my ground -- and even to counter in kind.  I don't know what the Christian thing to do in such cases is, but even though I am a Christian, I was never a very good Christian (as much as I desire to be).  If it were just face to face I would ignore him, but here if he is left unchecked he will continue to lambast Christianity and spread his false message of lies throughout these forums.  I feel, as I think you do, that it is our Christian duty to meet such challenges.

You are most welcome, I read many posts of others but it isn't often that I offer support in response in such debates as sometimes that seems to take away from the debate and make it appear as if the one being debated is being beaten up on.  Your message was also spot on, I feel, and so such warranted a response in recognition of that if only to show agreement.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 14, 2012, 03:28:37 pm
Again you accuse me of exactly what you do and suggest that it is me that falsely accuses you of this.  Such would be unbelievable if I didn't see it here. 

Your accusations as false and I'll get around to demonstrating on my schedule, not yours, should I decide it's worth the effort when you already
'pre-rejected' the evidence.
 
My ego?  I will have you know that I have learned the lessons of pride a long, long time ago and that I don't hold myself to this high regard as you imagine ...

Now, pay closer attention to what you've posted below, (should you edit it out, I'll restore it as an intact direct quote):

... and your confusion regarding how is it that I continue to best you and make you look foolish.

Alright, now in contextually-juxtaposition your two assertions above, we get this:
"My ego? I don't hold myself to this high regard as you imagine" and this "I continue to best you and make you look foolish." 

These contradictory quoted assertions of yours are not taken out of context, misquoted, or altered/twisted by elipses.  They're your mutually-exclusive claims.  Apparently, logic is not your forte.  Personally, I wouldn't let you dust-off my computer, let alone write code which relies upon computer-logic.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 14, 2012, 03:40:22 pm
I am like you in that his actions will not force me away and will only anchor me to stand my ground -- and even to counter in kind.

The use of irrationality/illogic to counter teh logic and rationality I've presented is hardly countering 'in kind", (although it is countering using the diametric opposite). 

If it were just face to face I would ignore him ...

Do you mean, as opposed to simply "talking about" someone you'd be ignoring in person?  That constitutes "ignoring" in your rationale?

... but here if he is left unchecked he will continue to lambast Christianity ...

"Unchecked", huh?  It remains that "faith" is a belief in something for which there is no substantive evidence.  Check that.
 
... and spread his false message of lies throughout these forums.

What "false message of lies" would that be?  That critical thinking skills are productive?  That the use of reasoning is anthema to those hloding blind faith?  You need to specify which false accusations you're making before you eat your own words again.
 
I feel, as I think you do, that it is our Christian duty to meet such challenges.

Yet, such challenges as have been made have previously not been well-met.  Although some attempts to do so are extant, none have thusfar met the burden of proof obligation in a debate for making initial claims.

I read many posts of others but it isn't often that I offer support in response in such debates as sometimes that seems to take away from the debate and make it appear as if the one being debated is being beaten up on.

Since there has been little to no response to the content of what I've posted in reply, (other than tangential diversions from that content), it can be extrapolated that your post in agreement is a metaphorical 'circling of the xtian wagons' in some pserception of an "injun raid".
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: SherylsShado on June 15, 2012, 07:34:48 pm
falcon9---
    your posts on this page have me so confused  :sad1:
    would you mind "dumbing it down for me"...???

    are you trying to say that "FC" site DOESN'T mean site "For Christians" ONLY?   :dontknow:  :crybaby2: 
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 15, 2012, 07:54:16 pm
falcon9---
    your posts on this page have me so confused  :sad1:
    would you mind "dumbing it down for me"...???

    are you trying to say that "FC" site DOESN'T mean site "For Christians" ONLY?   :dontknow:  :crybaby2: 

LOL!
I suppose it could be an abbreviation for "Fantasy Concepts" or, "Failed Challenges", or even "Fundie Christians" however, I somehow doubt that.
 :o
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: SherylsShado on June 15, 2012, 08:08:22 pm
falcon9---
    your posts on this page have me so confused  :sad1:
    would you mind "dumbing it down for me"...???

    are you trying to say that "FC" site DOESN'T mean site "For Christians" ONLY?   :dontknow:  :crybaby2: 

LOL!
I suppose it could be an abbreviation for "Fantasy Concepts" or, "Failed Challenges", or even "Fundie Christians" however, I somehow doubt that.
 :o

I can hear the keyboards clicking right now as multitudes of questions are being submitted to Admin asking what FC really stands for... ;D
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: alaric99x on June 15, 2012, 09:09:26 pm
When it comes to Christians, you already "disrespect" their ability to reason, by mocking their reasoning because they do believe in God.  You already "mock" their rationality by trying to make them appear irrational because they believe in God.  You already "deride" their critical thinking skills by trying to make them appear foolish and unable to think outside of their "God" choice in life.  I'm not impressed with your goading of me or others with respect to Christianity or our belief in God.  You are the one making yourself look ridiculous with your little quotes and pictures and disrespect of peoples' choice of believing in God.  It's not your business anyway, when you get down to it - in real life, everyone makes their choices, and you are just a "poster" on the other side of the screen trying to make Christians look unreasonable, irrational, and unable to think critically.  We are technically all "posters" on the other side of the screen.  But respect is a key word with any debate, no matter what the discussion is, and that is something you sorely lack with Christians - that's really sad you seem to dislike the idea of Christianity so much that you feel you must continually bash Christians regarding their God, beliefs, and their Bible. 

I disrespect your ability to reason, you have a pathetically limited ability to reason if you believe the nonsensical stories in some ancient writings that you base your life upon.  I don't know what I can say to you people, your confused reasoning far exceeds my abilities at any explanation and clarification.  It's kind of similar to trying to convince my kids that Santa Clause doesn't exist, or that the Easter Bunny didn't lay those eggs, it would destroy their illusions and they wouldn't have been old enough to understand the actual truths of facts and this wordly existence.

So, for the rest of you who still believe in the one remaining godly myth, I'll either wait for you to grow up too, or not ever, and then we'll talk about your childish fantasies, or not.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 15, 2012, 09:15:58 pm
When it comes to Christians, you already "disrespect" their ability to reason, by mocking their reasoning because they do believe in God.  You already "mock" their rationality by trying to make them appear irrational because they believe in God.  You already "deride" their critical thinking skills by trying to make them appear foolish and unable to think outside of their "God" choice in life.  I'm not impressed with your goading of me or others with respect to Christianity or our belief in God.  You are the one making yourself look ridiculous with your little quotes and pictures and disrespect of peoples' choice of believing in God.  It's not your business anyway, when you get down to it - in real life, everyone makes their choices, and you are just a "poster" on the other side of the screen trying to make Christians look unreasonable, irrational, and unable to think critically.  We are technically all "posters" on the other side of the screen.  But respect is a key word with any debate, no matter what the discussion is, and that is something you sorely lack with Christians - that's really sad you seem to dislike the idea of Christianity so much that you feel you must continually bash Christians regarding their God, beliefs, and their Bible. 

I disrespect your ability to reason, you have a pathetically limited ability to reason if you believe the nonsensical stories in some ancient writings that you base your life upon.  I don't know what I can say to you people, your confused reasoning far exceeds my abilities at any explanation and clarification.  It's kind of similar to trying to convince my kids that Santa Clause doesn't exist, or that the Easter Bunny didn't lay those eggs, it would destroy their illusions and they wouldn't have been old enough to understand the actual truths of facts and this wordly existence.

So, for the rest of you who still believe in the one remaining godly myth, I'll either wait for you to grow up too, or not ever, and then we'll talk about your childish fantasies, or not.

You are totally entitled to your opinion, beliefs, and thoughts.  I am entitled to mine as well.  I don't need to answer to you and I never indicated to you, in particular, that I wished to speak with you about God.  You call Him a "myth" and my beliefs "childish fantasies," and yet have provided no proof to show that my God is a "myth" nor have you shown that my beliefs are "childish fantasies."  Have a nice evening.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: mardukblood2009 on June 15, 2012, 09:26:23 pm
I am just wondering, did Christ himself say he is returning or is it everyone who believes in him saying this nonsense?  :BangHead: :BangHead:
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 15, 2012, 09:45:16 pm
I am just wondering, did Christ himself say he is returning or is it everyone who believes in him saying this nonsense?  :BangHead: :BangHead:

No, that was Arnold, as the Terminator ... "I'll be back ..."

Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: healthfreedom on June 16, 2012, 09:27:11 am
Such a wonderful verse of scripture that speaks to the hearts of believers. Jesus Christ is coming again, but only for those who have placed their trust in him as savior and Lord.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 16, 2012, 11:14:21 am
Such a wonderful verse of scripture that speaks to the hearts of believers. Jesus Christ is coming again, but only for those who have placed their trust in him as savior and Lord.

Only reason escapes capture by an illusional 'rapture'.


ďFaith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.Ē
--Ė Richard Dawkins
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: JediJohnnie on June 16, 2012, 11:22:57 am
I am just wondering, did Christ himself say he is returning or is it everyone who believes in him saying this nonsense?  :BangHead: :BangHead:

You could try actually reading the Bible to find out. ::)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: davidf938 on June 20, 2012, 08:48:23 am
I'm from Missouri. You'll have to show me. I mean real proof, not just some words in a book.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: reiddb on June 20, 2012, 08:49:23 am
Amen! He is coming again to see if there is faith.  Will you KNOW Him when He returns???
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 20, 2012, 02:11:32 pm
Amen! He is coming again to see if there is faith.

Amon-Ra is making a comeback?  Why would checking to see if 'believers' have "faith" in something matter to a hypothetical supernatural entity unless blind faith is all that sustains such a belief?  That is, if such an entity exists, "faith" or "belief" in it is not required as a requisite of existence, (it either exists or, doesn't exist).  Belief and faith are therefore extraneous concepts.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: barbme1972 on June 20, 2012, 04:09:57 pm
Here's something I find to be EQUALLY if not MORE believable:

          Paul McCartney died in a car crash November 9, 1966.

I am confused.  Paul McCartney isn't dead.  He played in London during the Queen's Jubilee just a couple of weeks ago.  If he is dead then who played for the Queen?  Or is that just your point and I am missing it?   :dontknow:
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 20, 2012, 04:12:43 pm
1 Peter 1:7  "That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:"

Mark 13:32  "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 20, 2012, 04:13:51 pm
1 Peter 1:7  "That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:"

(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: barbme1972 on June 20, 2012, 04:19:04 pm
1 Peter 1:7  "That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:"

Mark 13:32  "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

Ok, I can understand people wanting to quote scripture, but when you put something that makes people go, What?, I think you need to rethink which scripture you are putting or at least put the verse before it to help it make sense.  Geez, this is just like the billboard that is on the way out of my town.  A Baptist groups puts scripture verses on it, but there are times when it just doesn't make sense because the whole thing isn't there.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 20, 2012, 04:31:45 pm
Ok, I can understand people wanting to quote scripture, but when you put something that makes people go, What?, I think you need to rethink which scripture you are putting or at least put the verse before it to help it make sense.  Geez, this is just like the billboard that is on the way out of my town.  A Baptist groups puts scripture verses on it, but there are times when it just doesn't make sense because the whole thing isn't there.

That's because such constitutes simply proselytizing religious beliefs, (e.g., sales pitch).  One does not have to 'buy' the "snakeoil" being 'sold'.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: barbme1972 on June 20, 2012, 04:33:22 pm
Well put falcon.  Kudos!
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 20, 2012, 04:38:52 pm
1 Peter 1:7  "That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:"

Mark 13:32  "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

Ok, I can understand people wanting to quote scripture, but when you put something that makes people go, What?, I think you need to rethink which scripture you are putting or at least put the verse before it to help it make sense.  Geez, this is just like the billboard that is on the way out of my town.  A Baptist groups puts scripture verses on it, but there are times when it just doesn't make sense because the whole thing isn't there.
The title of the thread is "The Second Coming."  That's when Jesus Christ will return and all Christians, living and dead, will go with Him to spend eternity with God in Heaven. 

The first verse I listed speaks of Christians' faith and how many will mock, make fun of, cut down, and disrespect them because they do not believe in God or choose to believe there is no God.  The verse is saying that through all of that, and remaining faithful to Christ until He comes again, means that you will be gloriously rewarded with eternity in Heaven.

The second verse I listed indicates that no one, none of us, not the angels, not even the Son (Jesus) will know when God the Father will send Jesus to return again. 

I'm glad you said something about that.  It does seem confusing at times to just show the verses, without explaining what they mean within the context of the subject at hand.  I, for one, should know to explain them and not just post them, and for that I do apologize.  If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.  :)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 20, 2012, 04:41:12 pm
Ok, I can understand people wanting to quote scripture, but when you put something that makes people go, What?, I think you need to rethink which scripture you are putting or at least put the verse before it to help it make sense.  Geez, this is just like the billboard that is on the way out of my town.  A Baptist groups puts scripture verses on it, but there are times when it just doesn't make sense because the whole thing isn't there.

That's because such constitutes simply proselytizing religious beliefs, (e.g., sales pitch).  One does not have to 'buy' the "snakeoil" being 'sold'.
Please be respectful with your answer.  That is a sarcastic answer to a very good question.  You are giving your personal bias/slant with that, not to mention the question was directed to me.  You don't quote Bible verses, so you would not be one who would care to answer according to the context of that question.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 20, 2012, 04:53:07 pm
Well put falcon.  Kudos!

Thanks, Barb.  You'll note that a further response to your post was taken to be another opportunity to proselytize by the respondant, (instead of acknowledging the "snakeoil" for the proselytization that it is). Doubtless the 'complaint' about being "mocked for having faith" is intended to be a plea of 'victimization' for holding specious beliefs based upon "faith", (which is that for which there is no tangible evidence).
(http://i50.tinypic.com/do7885.jpg)
 
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 20, 2012, 05:18:10 pm
Well put falcon.  Kudos!

Thanks, Barb.  You'll note that a further response to your post was taken to be another opportunity to proselytize by the respondant, (instead of acknowledging the "snakeoil" for the proselytization that it is). Doubtless the 'complaint' about being "mocked for having faith" is intended to be a plea of 'victimization' for holding specious beliefs based upon "faith", (which is that for which there is no tangible evidence).
(http://i50.tinypic.com/do7885.jpg)
 


No it was NOT.  Please STOP being so RUDE.  This is absolutely rude and condescending.  No one is treating you this way with your "rejection" of God.  It is YOUR choice not to believe just as it is MY choice to believe. 
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: barbme1972 on June 20, 2012, 05:38:58 pm
No it was NOT.  Please STOP being so RUDE.  This is absolutely rude and condescending.  No one is treating you this way with your "rejection" of God.  It is YOUR choice not to believe just as it is MY choice to believe.[/color] 

I am not trying to make excuses for falcon.  But I just want to give you a little advice.  Don't take what he says personally.  He has even rubbed me the wrong way a couple of times, it is just how he is.  So most of what he says I just let it roll of my back unless it is a direct attack to my person and not my beliefs.  Falcon likes conflict, discussions and debates...especially when it comes to God.  So just keep to debates with him and you will do fine. Or just move on from what he has said.  Either way you will feel much better in the end.   :)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 20, 2012, 05:54:10 pm
Well put falcon.  Kudos!

Thanks, Barb.  You'll note that a further response to your post was taken to be another opportunity to proselytize by the respondant, (instead of acknowledging the "snakeoil" for the proselytization that it is). Doubtless the 'complaint' about being "mocked for having faith" is intended to be a plea of 'victimization' for holding specious beliefs based upon "faith", (which is that for which there is no tangible evidence).

No it was NOT.  Please STOP being so RUDE.  This is absolutely rude and condescending. 

Your additional proselytizing in response to "Barb" is right there, down-thread in message ID# 558182

No one is treating you this way with your "rejection" of God.  It is YOUR choice not to believe just as it is MY choice to believe. 

Have you ever seen a post from me specifically 'proselytizing' a "rejection of g-d"?  Do you know why you haven't?  It's because critical thinking skills aren't as easy to propagandize as specious religious beliefs.  One can either develop such capabilities which have pragmatic applications or, eschew them for impractical "faith", (which has no evidentiary basis).  That's the choice involved here.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 20, 2012, 06:01:19 pm
Ok, I can understand people wanting to quote scripture, but when you put something that makes people go, What?, I think you need to rethink which scripture you are putting or at least put the verse before it to help it make sense.  Geez, this is just like the billboard that is on the way out of my town.  A Baptist groups puts scripture verses on it, but there are times when it just doesn't make sense because the whole thing isn't there.

That's because such constitutes simply proselytizing religious beliefs, (e.g., sales pitch).  One does not have to 'buy' the "snakeoil" being 'sold'.

Please be respectful with your answer.  That is a sarcastic answer to a very good question. 

That was a pragmatic reply to an essentially rhetorical question; 'why are xtians tossing random bible-thumping quotes out?'
 
You are giving your personal bias/slant with that, not to mention the question was directed to me. 

I was and am replying to a post in a thread - just like anyone else can, (no matter 'who' it's directed to).  That reply constituted the result of rationally determining that religious proselytizing is the direct equivalent of the colloqiaalism, "selling snakeoil" under the meaning of that phrase.
 
You don't quote Bible verses, so you would not be one who would care to answer according to the context of that question.

Actually, I have done so recently, (in regards to the word "falcon" in the specious religious texts being thumped).
(http://i45.tinypic.com/dftll.jpg)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 20, 2012, 06:43:52 pm
No it was NOT.  Please STOP being so RUDE.  This is absolutely rude and condescending.  No one is treating you this way with your "rejection" of God.  It is YOUR choice not to believe just as it is MY choice to believe.[/color] 

I am not trying to make excuses for falcon.  But I just want to give you a little advice.  Don't take what he says personally.  He has even rubbed me the wrong way a couple of times, it is just how he is.  So most of what he says I just let it roll of my back unless it is a direct attack to my person and not my beliefs.  Falcon likes conflict, discussions and debates...especially when it comes to God.  So just keep to debates with him and you will do fine. Or just move on from what he has said.  Either way you will feel much better in the end.   :)
Thank you for your advice.  I don't particularly take it personally from him.  I am vocalizing how I feel about what he does to Christians who post their favorite verses in a Bible thread.  Some of them do not know how to take his disparaging and deliberate cut down remarks; some are new believers and have no idea why he is speaking so disrespectfully to them for simply sharing in a forum, in a thread that appeals to them. 

They are trying to earn their bonus like others, and some are provoked.  That's not fair being able to post in a forum about things they like, in this case, Bible verses, just to be stomped on when they do.  That's not fun, either.  And it's rude on his part to keep doing that.  He doesn't have to enter those threads, but does deliberately because he has the "right."  Having the "right" to do something doesn't mean being wrong in how it's done with rudeness in a forum, that specifically speaks of rules, including the "Golden Rule" in which does not seem to apply to him in the Bible verse threads.  But again, thank you.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: barbme1972 on June 20, 2012, 06:49:15 pm
Yes.  But I do have to agree with one thing of falcon.  This is a debate and discussion thread.  Which, The Second Coming is one of those threads.  It is when someone puts something in this section that isn't a debate topic that gets everyone fired up.  Especially when it is Bible verses.  Those should be in the regular forum, unless they want them to be debated over....hm....maybe that is why they are being put in this forum.  And Oh Boy, you mentioned the Golden Rule.  LOL!  falcon even has a come back for that one....*sigh*
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 20, 2012, 07:00:18 pm
I don't particularly take it personally from him. 

Since you have before and seem to do so now, your claim is dubious.
 
I am vocalizing how I feel ...

You certainly are and your 'feelings' are not what's being discussed in this thread.  This thread is within the d&d subforum where at least some debate & discussion regarding the topic, ("second coming", not bible-thumping "verses"), may occur.

They are trying to earn their bonus like others, and some are provoked. 

That's a pretty blunt and direct admission of posting just to earn the posting bonus. Doubtless the admission will be denied as such due to FC's policy on the forum posting bonus requirements.
 
That's not fair being able to post in a forum about things they like, in this case, Bible verses, just to be stomped on when they do. 

"Fair?"  Who told you that you'd have some sort of 'carte blanche' to post anything that comes to mind without dissenting responses?  Consider finding that 'person' and treating them under the auspices of the "golden rule":
           (http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
 
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 20, 2012, 07:11:11 pm
Yes.  But I do have to agree with one thing of falcon.  This is a debate and discussion thread.  Which, The Second Coming is one of those threads.  It is when someone puts something in this section that isn't a debate topic that gets everyone fired up.  Especially when it is Bible verses.  Those should be in the regular forum, unless they want them to be debated over....hm....maybe that is why they are being put in this forum. 

Nearly any posted subject matter can become "contentious", whether it starts out in the Off Topic forum or, when a religious proclamation gets plunked-down in the Payments or, Suggestions forums, (for examples for have recently ocurred).

... you mentioned the Golden Rule.  LOL!  falcon even has a come back for that one....*sigh*

Given that the "rule" is also a tacit reminder of one's own behaviour, not just the behaviour of others.  This means posting religious proselytizing, for example, is a tacit 'permission' for others to 'counter-proselytize', (or, use other dissenting methods to oppose the "rude" or "disrespectful" initial religious proselytizing/bible-thumpings). 
   Whether or not bible-thumpers consider their thumpings to be rude/disrespectful/presumptuous/sanctimonious or not is as immaterial as their considering responses opposing succh to be the same.  Essentially, if thumpers can thump, dissenters can dissent to the thumping.
No one is coercing either.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 20, 2012, 08:40:41 pm
Yes.  But I do have to agree with one thing of falcon.  This is a debate and discussion thread.  Which, The Second Coming is one of those threads.  It is when someone puts something in this section that isn't a debate topic that gets everyone fired up.  Especially when it is Bible verses.  Those should be in the regular forum, unless they want them to be debated over....hm....maybe that is why they are being put in this forum.  And Oh Boy, you mentioned the Golden Rule.  LOL!  falcon even has a come back for that one....*sigh*
He's not debating and discussing in this thread - and he certainly is not going to contribute nicely to the Bible verses in the regular forum - that's why people are saying things about his behavior.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 20, 2012, 08:47:14 pm
I don't particularly take it personally from him. 

Since you have before and seem to do so now, your claim is dubious.
 
I am vocalizing how I feel ...

You certainly are and your 'feelings' are not what's being discussed in this thread.  This thread is within the d&d subforum where at least some debate & discussion regarding the topic, ("second coming", not bible-thumping "verses"), may occur.

They are trying to earn their bonus like others, and some are provoked. 

That's a pretty blunt and direct admission of posting just to earn the posting bonus. Doubtless the admission will be denied as such due to FC's policy on the forum posting bonus requirements.
 
That's not fair being able to post in a forum about things they like, in this case, Bible verses, just to be stomped on when they do. 

"Fair?"  Who told you that you'd have some sort of 'carte blanche' to post anything that comes to mind without dissenting responses?  Consider finding that 'person' and treating them under the auspices of the "golden rule":
           (http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
 
Well, I guess it's okay for you to comment on people making the "30 posts" a month, yet no one else is allowed to say anything about it.  Yeah, right...

I'm not impressed with your constant comebacks - in your eyes, you are never wrong about anything.  Your "dissenting" comments to "dissenting" posts will receive "dissenting" responses - that seems to be the only way you know how to "debate and discuss" the religious "debates" and "off topic Bible threads."  Have a good night.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 20, 2012, 09:26:06 pm
But I do have to agree with one thing of falcon.  This is a debate and discussion thread.  Which, The Second Coming is one of those threads.  It is when someone puts something in this section that isn't a debate topic that gets everyone fired up.  Especially when it is Bible verses.  Those should be in the regular forum, unless they want them to be debated over....hm....maybe that is why they are being put in this forum.  And Oh Boy, you mentioned the Golden Rule.  LOL!  falcon even has a come back for that one....*sigh*

He's not debating and discussing in this thread - and he certainly is not going to contribute nicely to the Bible verses in the regular forum ...

To you I'm not however, to me you never "debate" and your "discussion" consists mainly of you making pronouncements without backing them up with substantive evidence.  That makes them the empty opinions you have a 'pronounced' penchant for. 

- that's why people are saying things about his behavior.

Surely they aren't 'gossiping'; that would be "rude", "disrespectful", discourteous and impolite.
 ::)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Falconer02 on June 20, 2012, 10:31:43 pm
Quote
Surely they aren't 'gossiping'; that would be "rude", "disrespectful", discourteous and impolite.

Oh my gawd....did you, like, see that font color she was using earlier?. Color disasterrrrr!
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 20, 2012, 10:52:14 pm
- that's why people are saying things about his behavior.


Quote
Surely they aren't 'gossiping'; that would be "rude", "disrespectful", discourteous and impolite.


Oh my gawd....did you, like, see that font color she was using earlier?. Color disasterrrrr!

Eh?  I wasn't paying attention to that.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 21, 2012, 05:42:39 pm
But I do have to agree with one thing of falcon.  This is a debate and discussion thread.  Which, The Second Coming is one of those threads.  It is when someone puts something in this section that isn't a debate topic that gets everyone fired up.  Especially when it is Bible verses.  Those should be in the regular forum, unless they want them to be debated over....hm....maybe that is why they are being put in this forum.  And Oh Boy, you mentioned the Golden Rule.  LOL!  falcon even has a come back for that one....*sigh*

He's not debating and discussing in this thread - and he certainly is not going to contribute nicely to the Bible verses in the regular forum ...

To you I'm not however, to me you never "debate" and your "discussion" consists mainly of you making pronouncements without backing them up with substantive evidence.  That makes them the empty opinions you have a 'pronounced' penchant for. 

- that's why people are saying things about his behavior.

Surely they aren't 'gossiping'; that would be "rude", "disrespectful", discourteous and impolite.
 ::)
Don't flatter yourself.  These things are said in the open, no gossiping. 
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 21, 2012, 05:44:34 pm
Quote
Surely they aren't 'gossiping'; that would be "rude", "disrespectful", discourteous and impolite.

Oh my gawd....did you, like, see that font color she was using earlier?. Color disasterrrrr!

What's wrong with the color, and of whom are you speaking?
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: JediJohnnie on June 21, 2012, 05:56:37 pm
Eschatology was never one of my stronger subjects,but the important thing to remember is Jesus will return!We should all pray for that day to arrive soon. :peace: :heart:
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 21, 2012, 06:16:43 pm
But I do have to agree with one thing of falcon.  This is a debate and discussion thread.  Which, The Second Coming is one of those threads.  It is when someone puts something in this section that isn't a debate topic that gets everyone fired up.  Especially when it is Bible verses.  Those should be in the regular forum, unless they want them to be debated over....hm....maybe that is why they are being put in this forum.  And Oh Boy, you mentioned the Golden Rule.  LOL!  falcon even has a come back for that one....*sigh*

He's not debating and discussing in this thread - and he certainly is not going to contribute nicely to the Bible verses in the regular forum ...

To you I'm not however, to me you never "debate" and your "discussion" consists mainly of you making pronouncements without backing them up with substantive evidence.  That makes them the empty opinions you have a 'pronounced' penchant for.
 

- that's why people are saying things about his behavior.

{"Falconeer02"'s reply here, to which "falcon9" responded, was omitted by "jcribb16}

Surely they aren't 'gossiping'; that would be "rude", "disrespectful", discourteous and impolite.
 ::)

These things are said in the open, no gossiping.  

The accurate description of "gossiping" is not dependent upon it being concealed or open, gossiper.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 21, 2012, 06:19:26 pm
Eschatology was never one of my stronger subjects,but the important thing to remember is Jesus will return!We should all pray for that day to arrive soon. :peace: :heart:

Neither is reasoning ability one of JJ's "stronger subjects".  Nonetheless, why would anyone engage in magical intercessory rituals which encourage a 'zombie apocalypse'?
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2rxihbn.jpg)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 22, 2012, 04:21:40 pm
Eschatology was never one of my stronger subjects,but the important thing to remember is Jesus will return!We should all pray for that day to arrive soon. :peace: :heart:

Neither is reasoning ability one of JJ's "stronger subjects".  Nonetheless, why would anyone engage in magical intercessory rituals which encourage a 'zombie apocalypse'?
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2rxihbn.jpg)
They don't encourage any such thing.   :angry7:
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 22, 2012, 04:26:11 pm
Eschatology was never one of my stronger subjects,but the important thing to remember is Jesus will return!We should all pray for that day to arrive soon. :peace: :heart:

Neither is reasoning ability one of JJ's "stronger subjects".  Nonetheless, why would anyone engage in magical intercessory rituals which encourage a 'zombie apocalypse'?
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2rxihbn.jpg)

They don't encourage any such thing.   :angry7:

They don't?  What about encouraging the belief that a 'dead guy' will come back to life, along with those who buy that notion,
(that's what defines "zombies")?
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 22, 2012, 04:48:24 pm
Eschatology was never one of my stronger subjects,but the important thing to remember is Jesus will return!We should all pray for that day to arrive soon. :peace: :heart:

Neither is reasoning ability one of JJ's "stronger subjects".  Nonetheless, why would anyone engage in magical intercessory rituals which encourage a 'zombie apocalypse'?
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2rxihbn.jpg)

They don't encourage any such thing.   :angry7:

They don't?  What about encouraging the belief that a 'dead guy' will come back to life, along with those who buy that notion,
(that's what defines "zombies")?
Believers do not have to think like you seem to think they should.  You don't believe what Christ did - that is your choice.  People make up their own minds with religious beliefs with their own personal reasons.  It has nothing to do with the ridiculous and derogatory term "zombie apocalypse."
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 22, 2012, 04:58:30 pm
Believers do not have to think like you seem to think they should. 

True, believers don't have to "think" irrationally, that's their choice. {note the play on words} 

You don't believe what Christ did - that is your choice.  People make up their own minds with religious beliefs with their own personal reasons.  It has nothing to do with the ridiculous and derogatory term "zombie apocalypse."

'A zombie is an animated corpse brought back to life by mystical/supernatural means, such as witchcraft or, rapturing. The term is often figuratively applied to describe a hypnotized person bereft of consciousness and self-awareness, yet ambulant and able to respond to surrounding stimuli.'
--paraphrased source
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 22, 2012, 05:51:02 pm
Believers do not have to think like you seem to think they should. 

True, believers don't have to "think" irrationally, that's their choice. {note the play on words} 

You don't believe what Christ did - that is your choice.  People make up their own minds with religious beliefs with their own personal reasons.  It has nothing to do with the ridiculous and derogatory term "zombie apocalypse."

'A zombie is an animated corpse brought back to life by mystical/supernatural means, such as witchcraft or, rapturing. The term is often figuratively applied to describe a hypnotized person bereft of consciousness and self-awareness, yet ambulant and able to respond to surrounding stimuli.'
--paraphrased source
Please stop that.  Believers are NOT irrational for their beliefs.  They are just as entitled to their beliefs as you are to your choice of what you think.  Neither are irrational - that is rude.

Christ was not a "zombie." 
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 22, 2012, 06:13:36 pm
Believers do not have to think like you seem to think they should.

True, believers don't have to "think" irrationally, that's their choice. {note the play on words}
 

You don't believe what Christ did - that is your choice.  People make up their own minds with religious beliefs with their own personal reasons.  It has nothing to do with the ridiculous and derogatory term "zombie apocalypse."

'A zombie is an animated corpse brought back to life by mystical/supernatural means, such as witchcraft or, rapturing. The term is often figuratively applied to describe a hypnotized person bereft of consciousness and self-awareness, yet ambulant and able to respond to surrounding stimuli.'
--paraphrased source

Please stop that.  Believers are NOT irrational for their beliefs.  

A "belief" in something for which there is no evidence isn't 'rational' therefore, it's irrational.  This applies to any belief, not just religious ones.

They are just as entitled to their beliefs as you are to your choice of what you think.  Neither are irrational - that is rude.

I never insisted/implied/insinuated that believers were not "entitled" to whatever specious beliefs they want to cling to.  It isn't any more "rude" or, 'impolite' to point this out in an open FC venue than it is for such believers to post regarding their religious beliefs in an open FC venue.  Either both are "rude/impolite" or, neither are.  Anything less than that would illuminate bias.

Christ was not a "zombie."  

Let's see ...
"zombie": was alive, then dead, then reanimated
"jesus": was alive, then dead, then reanimated

Damn, you're *right*, they're completely different notions!
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Falconer02 on June 22, 2012, 07:01:05 pm
Quote
Let's see ...
"zombie": was alive, then dead, then reanimated
"jesus": was alive, then dead, then reanimated

Damn, you're *right*, they're completely different notions!

In all seriousness, I think Jesus would be classified as more of a Lich than your stereotypical zombie. Both have very similar traits to this biblical character though.

"Unlike zombies, which are often depicted as mindless, part of a hivemind and/or under the control of some magician, a lich retains independent thought and is usually at least as intelligent as it was prior to its transformation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lich
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 22, 2012, 07:04:45 pm
Quote
Let's see ...
"zombie": was alive, then dead, then reanimated
"jesus": was alive, then dead, then reanimated

Damn, you're *right*, they're completely different notions!

In all seriousness, I think Jesus would be classified as more of a Lich than your stereotypical zombie. Both have very similar traits to this biblical character though.

"Unlike zombies, which are often depicted as mindless, part of a hivemind and/or under the control of some magician, a lich retains independent thought and is usually at least as intelligent as it was prior to its transformation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lich

I'd have to dispute the distinguishing aspects of "independent thought and is usually at least as intelligent as it was prior to its transformation" in the comparisons though, (unless it inherently includes such lack of independent thought/intelligence prior to the reanimating transformation ... that is, if the 'zombie/lich' wasn't all that bright when alive ...)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Falconer02 on June 23, 2012, 01:15:08 pm
Quote
I'd have to dispute the distinguishing aspects of "independent thought and is usually at least as intelligent as it was prior to its transformation" in the comparisons though, (unless it inherently includes such lack of independent thought/intelligence prior to the reanimating transformation ... that is, if the 'zombie/lich' wasn't all that bright when alive ...)

I'll compromise and call him a zombie-lich hybrid.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 23, 2012, 01:19:24 pm
Quote
I'd have to dispute the distinguishing aspects of "independent thought and is usually at least as intelligent as it was prior to its transformation" in the comparisons though, (unless it inherently includes such lack of independent thought/intelligence prior to the reanimating transformation ... that is, if the 'zombie/lich' wasn't all that bright when alive ...)

I'll compromise and call him a zombie-lich hybrid.

That might account for how much mileage they believe they're getting out of such a hybrid alright.
 :o
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Falconer02 on June 24, 2012, 03:02:34 pm
Quote
That might account for how much mileage they believe they're getting out of such a hybrid alright.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 24, 2012, 03:51:50 pm
Quote
That might account for how much mileage they believe they're getting out of such a hybrid alright.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI

Thanks, I'm here all week - don't forget to tip, (or trip), your wait-person.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: JediJohnnie on June 24, 2012, 07:21:54 pm

Get Falcon and Falconer together,and this tends to be the reaction on a thread.
(http://i.imgur.com/lyUYf.gif)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 24, 2012, 07:31:21 pm
Get Falcon and Falconer together,and this tends to be the reaction on a thread.
(http://i.imgur.com/lyUYf.gif)

That's due to the "minds" of so many religious adherents being closed, like that door.

"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science --or any honest intellectual inquiry."
-- Stephen J. Gould
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: Falconer02 on June 24, 2012, 08:26:44 pm
Quote
Get Falcon and Falconer together,and this tends to be the reaction on a thread.

I'd be delighted to see you explain how Jesus does not have the traits of a zombie or lich!
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 25, 2012, 12:24:42 pm
Get Falcon and Falconer together,and this tends to be the reaction on a thread.

I'd be delighted to see you explain how Jesus does not have the traits of a zombie or lich!

Doubtless he'd be unable to do so without resorting to a bible-thumping non-response.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: tzs on June 25, 2012, 10:30:57 pm
Get Falcon and Falconer together,and this tends to be the reaction on a thread.
(http://i.imgur.com/lyUYf.gif)
Not true at all, both of them are very intelligent and make valid points. I think its quite childish of you to incorperate your Star Wars obsession into your religious beliefs. PLEASE don't do that, I really like star wars alot, and don't recall the word God being used once in that movie. And saying that "the darkside" is a metaphor for evil and the devil is just another way to make you feel comfortable about your religious ways.. :wave:
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: sigmapi1501 on June 26, 2012, 07:47:13 pm
As far as the title of this thread.... I am always grateful for one!
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 27, 2012, 12:54:10 am
As far as the title of this thread.... I am always grateful for one!

While some women are so ungrateful they want more than one or two?
 :o
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: alice44 on June 27, 2012, 09:03:39 am
I think this thread has gone in a different direction than the original poster!!!!! :confused1:
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: jcribb16 on June 27, 2012, 01:30:16 pm
I think this thread has gone in a different direction than the original poster!!!!! :confused1:


I totally agree with you!        :dontknow:
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on June 27, 2012, 05:00:19 pm
I think this thread has gone in a different direction than the original poster!!!!! :confused1:

I totally agree with you!        :dontknow:

"Thank you, please come again."
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: JediJohnnie on June 27, 2012, 06:06:50 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/i7gws.gif)
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: healthfreedom on August 10, 2012, 01:49:02 pm
It will be a great day when Jesus Christ comes back to receive his people, and take us away from to sinful, corrupted planet.
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on August 10, 2012, 01:55:05 pm
It will be a great day when Jesus Christ comes back to receive his people, and take us away from to sinful, corrupted planet.

Every day must be a disappointment to the holders of such a blind faith.

"Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-- Albert Einstein
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: HuffmanFamilyof4 on August 10, 2012, 03:14:23 pm
tsk,tsk,tsk, how sad
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: nadarama on August 22, 2012, 10:26:29 pm
I know these are the last days but I don't know when jesus is coming!
Title: Re: Second Coming
Post by: falcon9 on August 22, 2012, 10:29:29 pm
I know these are the last days but I don't know when jesus is coming!

How can you "know" the one without 'knowing' the other?