Well, I would say, Not the typing part, but the internet (world wide web) has made possible the rapid expansion of Matthew 24:14 that God's good news message (Daniel 2:44) would be proclaimed on a grand international scale as it is now being done today. The internet has helped make possible rapid Bible translation into numerous languages so that people now living in earth's remote areas can have Scripture in their own mother tongue or native languages as never before in history.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
End of the world
- Thread starter Rajinder Nijjhar
- Start date
Well, I would say, Not the typing part, but the internet (world wide web) has made possible the rapid expansion of Matthew 24:14 that God's good news message (Daniel 2:44) would be proclaimed on a grand international scale as it is now being done today. The internet has helped make possible rapid Bible translation into numerous languages so that people now living in earth's remote areas can have Scripture in their own mother tongue or native languages as never before in history.
Just as I find the Flood of Noah's day was selective, and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was selective, that shows a pattern which lies ahead of us at Revelation 7:14 which is also selective. The executional words from Jesus' mouth will only execute the wicked as per Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16; Proverbs 2:21-22; Psalms 92:7.
Thus as Jesus' promised the humble meek people will inherit the Earth as per Matthew 5:5; Psalms 37:10-11,29.
I find ALL the figurative humble 'sheep'-like people of Matthew 25:31-33,37 will survive, so Not already happened.
The executional words from Jesus' mouth are only against the wicked as per Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16.
So, the 'righteous warfare' of Revelation 19:11 has Not already happened.
'Righteous' meaning that No one considered as upright will be in harm's way.
Before Armageddon, God's good news message (Daniel 2:44) would have to be proclaimed world wide.
Just as Jesus said at Matthew 24:14, that good news is proclaimed on a grand international scale as never before.
We are now at the ' final phase ', so to speak, of that global proclamation.
Thus that means we are nearing the ' final signal ', so to speak, of 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 then ' they ' (powers that be) will be saying," Peace and Security" as the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14 before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, ushers in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.
Then mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' as mentioned for healing all nations at Revelation 22:2.
As well as all the others of the world's great religious traditions, all claiming by the way that the whole world will hear their message too, ironically.
(of course they're all false because the one we choose is right, of course).
I'm glad I don't believe God is a punishing parent we need to be afraid of. Kind of hard to find Love in the face of fear....
The magical volleyball
Member
Considering all the metaphors in the bible and multiple interpretations it seems to me revelations could be referencing the fall of the Roman Empire and the burning down of rome.
People have been predicting the end of the world for thousands of years and every time they are proven wrong.
What happens if humans blow up the world before the apocalypse happens?
Why should humanity treat the world like a temporary thing that's going to end within 100 yrs rather than treating it like it will continue to spin and provide for life for humans for thousands of years to come?
P.s. what you just described sounds like a really lame movie.
I find the Bible book of Revelation (singular) is a revealing. In the case of Revelation it is a revealing of the future described in very vivid word pictures, or 16 very vivid visions leading up to Revelation 22:2 blessings for mankind.
In Daniel chapter 2 is described a HUGE image or statue.
In a nut shell, the metals in that statue picture or represent the rise and fall of world powers.
There is a sequence of how those world powers appear starting with ancient Babylon (Gold)
The rest are depicted by inferior metals. The legs of iron was the Roman Empire.
Then, the legs mix with iron and clay down to the toes. ( we are at the time of the toes, or even the toenails )
A statue can't support itself on that weakened mixture.
Those human rulerships taken together with Revelation (Daniel's writings with John's Revelation writings) helps identify the rise and fall of 8 kings or powers. The United Nations will prove to be the 8th king of Revelation 17:11.
As in the past, God used the political/military powers (such as the Roman armies destroying un-faithful Jerusalem in the year 70), so with backing the U.N. can be strengthened and prove to be God's modern-day arm of the Law because unless the political turns on the corrupted religious world there will be No hope for humanity. That means although humans have the ability to blow up the world, the apocalypse will happen first. Meaning that Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will usher in global Peace on Earth among person's of goodwill. Thus the humble meek will inherit the Earth.
So, it's Not Earth that will end, but wickedness on Earth that will end. The earth abides forever - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B.
The words from Jesus' mouth according to Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16 will execute the wicked.
The wicked is what will be No more - Psalms 92:7; Proverbs 2:21-22.
Mankind will see the return on Earth of the Genesis ' tree of life ' for the 'healing' of earth's nations right here on Earth according to Revelation 22:2 happy climax.
As well as all the others of the world's great religious traditions, all claiming by the way that the whole world will hear their message too, ironically.
I'd like to add: the one which God chooses is the right one. ( Go to the religion of God's choice )
Why else would a person belong to a religion unless they believe it was the right one.
I find Jesus condemned many religious traditions or customs at Matthew 15:9 and chapter 23 of Matthew.
Especially when un-faithful Jews began mixing with the Greeks they adopted their theories or philosophies and began teaching them as Scripture although Not Scripture. That mixing, blending, fusion has created a religious syncretism.
That is why we see so many similar or overlapping religious teachings or traditions spread out world wide.
None of which I find makes the teaching of Jesus as wrong, but makes un-scriptural teachings as wrong.
I find according to 1 John 4:14-16 that God send Jesus to be the Savior of the world because God "IS" love.
Because Not all accept to follow God's loving Golden Rule is a reason why Matthew 20:28 says Jesus' ransom covers MANY and does Not say all.
There is ' No fear in love ' according to 1 John 4:18.
'Love' then is the reason why Jesus laid down his life for us according to John 15:13-19.
The magical volleyball
Member
So am I correct in assuming that what your saying is that while humanity right now possesses the ability to destroy all human life on earth, we won't because Jesus will come kill all the "evil doers". After Jesus is done with that, a tree will appear and this tree will control human free will preventing us from being wicked to one another forever. Thus ushering in world peace.
If you are correct then wouldn't it be in the best interest of the world for the president to go ahead and fire off all the nukes (or attempt to, according to you) and force Jesus to usher in peace now?
I've always believed God doesn't have or need a religion. I like to say I follow the same religion God does. Be like God, and you don't need a religion.
They would belong to one they feel is helpful to them spiritually. Many religions can offer that to people, and it's really a matter of which one works for you personally. The religion that works for you, is the right one. A different religion that works for someone else, is the right religion for them. It's that simple, actually.
Jesus condemned hypocrisy. Jesus wasn't a legalist. He was a "lovist". He taught Love over all other matters, including religious beliefs and doctrines.
No, I'm afraid I don't believe that was this issue. Straining at gnats, the letter of the law, while swallowing a camel of being unloving towards others. That was he condemned. And so do I.
Unloving is wrong, whether you are Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, or all other religions.
Love is the fulfilling of the law. Those who love do no harm. Those who love, no matter where they are or what religion they follow, are doing God's will.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Religions are organized worship of a god. Tell me, what would a god worship? Of course they don't need religion, but that doesn't make the circumstances applicable to us.
Careful, trying to speak for everyone. Not all religions are against hate and vengeance, when applied properly.
The Law includes all things, love and hate both included. All of life is not "love and light," and every day also has a night. Those who love are bloody fools to believe that they do no harm.
Quite a number are not. Take Buddhism for example.
In how I understand what God is, it does make it very applicable to us. I understand God as an archetype of our highest and deepest self. If we realize that in ourselves, then what is there beyond our own being? If you asked God what religion 'he' was, the answer is "I am all religions. I am none".
But they are for love, to their group. They just don't extend love beyond their group.... yet.
That comment was specific to the law of love he was citing. My comment was referencing the Apostle Paul in saying in Romans, "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Buddhism the religion or Buddhism the philosophy? Because Buddhism as a religion teaches about gods, but rejects the "creator deity" notion; that is One God that created everything in a span of days.
Unless you've spoken with or learned about every single religion and group out there (and there are a lot,) that's not really a claim that you can make.
And even then, that's not true. Love can - and often does - hurt and harm. Ever heard the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? Same thing. Not only that, but I've seen some of the worst statements and actions covered and claimed with love.
Theravada Buddhism does not have deities. And while Mahayana and Vajrayana have 'deities', they are technically not considered gods. There are archetypal forms of what we aspire to become as humans. We can become a bodhisattva, and it is the goal of the aspirant.
It is a claim I can make because it is based upon developmental studies. There are stages of development every human goes through which are universally seen and researched. This translates into societies and cultures at various stages of development as a whole. Ethnocentric religions fall along that developmental spectrum. The ethnocentric stages (the Amber traditionalist stage following Beck's Spiral Dynamics) developed a higher capacity for group cohesion and care beyond the earlier tribal/warrior stage (the Red stage in Spiral Dynamics). Now while this 'greater love' is higher than the earlier kinship systems of bloodlines, it is love that does not universally reach beyond its own borders into other cultures, languages, and peoples who are seen as 'other', even subhuman, or uncivilized humans. And so forth.
There are tomes of material out there that can be researched that exposes this. One need not interview every last religion on earth, just like no scientist need examine every last atom in order to reliably recognize patterns which can be universally applied.
No that is not the same thing. Genuine Love leads to active compassion. Fear for self causes us to withdraw and substitute 'good intentions' for living love.
Claiming to be loving and being loving are two different things. The words of Jesus apply here. "By their fruits you shall know them," not by their claims.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Okay? Your point still fails in that technically, there does exist the forms of gods, Buddhism is regarded as a philosophy just as much as it is a religion (and is often conjoined with other religions,) and mostly in that - going back to Post #53, Religion is defined as "the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and the activities that are connected with the worship of them." You objected with the claim that there are "many" that don't worship gods, and thus far the only one you've been able to come up with is a halfway mixture of religion and philosophy.
And even one religion that goes counter to your all-encompassing claim would disprove it. Namely when you said that "unloving" is wrong in "all other religions" Hell, even the ones that you named have allowed doctrines of hate, disapproval, and anything else that could fall under "unloving" sentiments. If you want to try limiting your world view to "love and light" you go right for it. But speak for yourself.
Yeah, it is. Love is not only selfless care and fuzzy feelings for one's fellow man, and limiting it to that (and all other forms of love as "not genuine") is plainly dishonest. And even then, what happens when your "selfless love" fails? I've seen more than a few people tearfully reconcile this foolish notion of "genuine love" and they always suffer for it; they harm themselves, which is still love causing harm.
Again, I don't see Buddhism in general as believing in God or gods in any literal sense where they engage in what you would commonly understand as worship. That covers quite a large religion in its many forms. I'm not even mentioning versions of Christianity, liberal and progressive forms when don't literally believe in God in any traditional ideas, such as the anthropomorphic guy in the sky all-seeing, all-knowing deity. God in that context is understood, as I said before as archetypal, not literal.
Even if in primitive times they imaged a deity that controlled earthquakes and whatnot, and a religion formed at that time holding that to be true, religions and the people in them evolve. So today, to assume that they all must think, believe, and practice their religion in those ways is wrong. To a fundamentalist Christian, the liberal Christian doesn't believe in God.
Oddly, no researcher has encountered that yet. And it's not my claim, just like evolution is not my claim. It's the claims of researchers and those who review and validate their research. It's science.
You think hatred is valued over love in some religions? I suppose, if you are talking about warrior religions or something like that, but in all honesty, isn't that 'destroy the enemy' and act of caring for their tribe? That to run away in cowardice would be considered unloving? Yes, it would be. Or to compromise with a warring tribe, the same thing.
So do you have an example where Hate is the highest ideal? If you do, then I'd like to know how that religion even exists as they would have all killed each other off rather quickly.
No doubt. They distort the teachings of love into unloving crap. "By their fruits you shall know them". If their doctrines are unloving, and they claim it is the truth of God or their own religion, then they are hypocrites.
You worldview embraces "hate and dark"? I would hope not for your own sake.
"Fuzzy feelings"? That's what you imagine love is? No wonder none of this is communicating with you. That's a rather cynical view of what love is. I have never, nor ever would limit love to what you describe. There are many, many forms of how love is expressed.
I would argue it was not truly selfless.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
And even if you're given this, you still have only one "religion" that doesn't have gods. Which is a far cry from "many".
You just did, and that is - as mentioned before - the "Creator Deity". That is not every ideal and understanding of what a god is, and it seems here that you're limiting "god" to Creator Deity, which is not a universal.
Really. No research at all has encountered a religion that isn't super tolerant, or that allows for vengeance and "unloving"? Let me break the research:
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
Men shall answer mocking with mockery,
And fraud with falsehood meet.
To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
To him and the friend of his friend;
But never a man shall friendship make
With one of his foeman's friends."
-Hávamál s.42-43
"If another thou hast whom thou hardly wilt trust,
Yet good from him wouldst get,
Thou shalt speak him fair, but falsely think,
And fraud with falsehood requite.
So is it with him whom thou hardly wilt trust,
And whose mind thou might not know;
Laugh with him might thou, but speak not thy mind,
Like gifts to his shalt thou give."
-Hávamál s.45-46
The Hávamál being, of course, a very important text in modern Heathenry and Ásatrú, and the foundation of our ethics and morals.
That is not what I said, now is it? Hatred not being seen as bad or wrong is by no means hatred being valued over kindness.
No, it's not, and this is purely "Love & Light" fantasy. If you destroy your enemies, you are not caring for them. Cowardice and bravery has no bearing on love or "unloving" towards a foe.
Did I say anything about my world view? No. Your worldview seems to be the one that completely ignores the night, and focuses on the day - i.e. "Love & Life". Regarding my worldview, I view both as necessity and fact.
Did I not just say that love is not just that? You need to start actually paying attention to what I'm saying, rather than assuming the worst of me. And you call me cynical....
Of course you would. "No True Scotsman" to a T.
Actually, I just discovered we are in a Discussion thread, not a debate topic thread. I won't proceed further.