Ends in 50 Years

[Heyo]

Of course the converse would be billions of people that were shocked and surprised of how right they were.

No matter how you turn it, if we ever find out about the nature of god(s), there will be vastly more people having been wrong than right. And the number of people who are 100% right about all aspects will be as many as I can count with my fingers.

 

[Audie]

The forum does a weird thing now. An orange bar goes left to right.

Then 3 vertical squares blink off and on at the upper right.

It's freaking me out.

Does anyone believe me?



This one is the biggie indicator. God wrote it. I know it. He called it twice in both the Testaments. This is something I can hold in my hand and use to reverse engineer the prophetic time period back through the middle ages to the Ottoman Decree to restore and to rebuild. Me and a couple other guys figured it out in 2015.

It's been verified and tested. It's the se2cond green bar in my bar graph. It is the empirical that can assist to predict how much time we have remaining. When you see the Days of Lot, standing where it ought not to be, flee to the mountains. 1290 days.

I'm also curious. What would you guys do if you could know for a fact, not just that the Bible is true, but that it's happening now. Christ is coming back very soon. What would you do? Buy bags of rice? Try to dig a bunker? Call on the mountains and the rocks to fall on us and hide us from the Face of He who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb?

You "know" that "god" wrote something?

I can mostly understand having faith, believing
the unbelievable.

But claims to arcane knowledge a person cannot possibly
have are dishonourable.

Among the many reasons I have so little respect for
Christianity is the lack of integrity in its soonsors.

 

[Audie]

No matter how you turn it, if we ever find out about the nature of god(s), there will be vastly more people having been wrong than right. And the number of people who are 100% right about all aspects will be as many as I can count with my fingers.

That many?

 

[Kenny]

Nobody is going to be surprised after they die.
No more than they felt anything during the
billions of years b4 they were born.

Unless there is a hereafter.

 

[Kenny]

No matter how you turn it, if we ever find out about the nature of god(s), there will be vastly more people having been wrong than right. And the number of people who are 100% right about all aspects will be as many as I can count with my fingers.

Yes… we can state the numbers and numbers won’t change.

And, regardless, the end outcome will also not change whether Christians were right or non-Christians.

 

[Kenny]

\. I do not understand so much about the Christian faith. It is so very alien to me.

To reiterate, it isn’t lack understanding (one can understand a person’s position even if they don’t agree with it, it is “i don’t agree with the Christian faith” - which is acceptable.

 

[Kenny]

I have often said (to much consternation) that not having a god means i cannot sin. One of the advantages of atheism!

Which then alludes to the position that morality is not the same between atheists and non-atheists.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Which then alludes to the position that morality is not the same between atheists and non-atheists.

It's hardly the same between various religious beliefs either it seems.

 

[Audie]

One man's blood doesn't seem enough for more than one other man.
Besides I know of men who have given up their lives trying to rescue a single dog.

So, Jesus, you don't impress me at all. You're not that special bruh. Get over yourself. *

One heroic sacrifice is of course noble
and to be respected. Every soldier goes into
combat aware that his fate could make him
envy the crucified.

Far more admirable- the more so as it gets
no posthmous medal of honour nor the least
recognition or thanks- are those who
selflessly act a life of quiet courage,
sacrificing everything of themselves in service
to others.

THAT is heroic, that is love.

*get over yourself? That's not really fair to poor
Jesus who died a terrible and unjustified death.
I'd put the finger on those who turned him into
something he would even know was supposed to be him.

 

[Kenny]

It's hardly the same between various religious beliefs either it seems.

That would be true… of course. My point was that atheists say they can be moral too as if there were no differences in morality.

 

[Audie]

It's hardly the same between various religious beliefs either it seems.

Among different religions?
Not very consistent among
Christians.

And at the same time the basic teachings
about moral values that are supposed to be from God
and special to Christianity, i was taught those
as part of growing up, not a church thing.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That would be true… of course. My point was that atheists say they can be moral too as if there were no differences in morality.

Yes, and perhaps the atheists have to actually think about morals more rather than simply accepting them from one book or another, and which often then produces conflicts as we see in the Middle East or elsewhere.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, and perhaps the atheists have to actually think about morals more rather than simply accepting them from one book or another, and which often then produces conflicts as we see in the Middle East or elsewhere.

And yet a standard is always set by someone or by God. Someone sets the standard.

 

[Stevicus]

And yet a standard is always set by someone or by God. Someone sets the standard.

It could be God, but it seems the only evidence of such are the writings and sayings of people who claimed to have talked to God or who speak for God or claim to know what God is thinking and feeling. We don't know if it's true; it's just what people say. That's where the standard comes from. Society generally sets the standard for morality, although that can fluctuate and change based on cultural and political shifts that can often occur.

There isn't just one "someone" to set the standard, or at least it shouldn't be that. I would think it would be decided by consensus.

 

[Heyo]

That would be true… of course. My point was that atheists say they can be moral too as if there were no differences in morality.

Believers can be moral, too, if they have a conscience that is bigger than their belief. People who adhere to "Divine Command Theory logy" are not moral, they are obedient.

 

[Audie]

Believers can be moral, too, if they have a conscience that is bigger than their belief. People who adhere to "Divine Command Theory logy" are not moral, they are obedient.

And often led into profoundly immoral behaviour.

 

[Heyo]

And often led into profoundly immoral behaviour.

According to your morals.

 

[Kenny]

It could be God, but it seems the only evidence of such are the writings and sayings of people who claimed to have talked to God or who speak for God or claim to know what God is thinking and feeling. We don't know if it's true; it's just what people say. That's where the standard comes from. Society generally sets the standard for morality, although that can fluctuate and change based on cultural and political shifts that can often occur.

There isn't just one "someone" to set the standard, or at least it shouldn't be that. I would think it would be decided by consensus.

So, if the consensus is that cannibalism is perfectly fine (and there are some people groups who have that position) then “let’s eat”??

If the consensus is “kill all homosexuals” (which I don’t subscribe to), it is therefore ok?

 

[sun rise]

Did you ever consider that the blood of this man was different than any other man? And that the shedding of blood was just one small indispensible part of a greater more complete process that no other man went through?

Since everyone dies, whether or not Jesus died or when he died is not a key point. That Christ, the Avatar, voluntarily takes on the suffering of humanity by suffering Himself is key. And as you wrote, it's the greater purpose and impact of the suffering that is key.

As a follower of Meher Baba, who I accept as the Avatar, the Christ in a new body, I was taken by this report of how God's suffering is not our suffering. Meher Baba had been in a bad car accident that resulted in injuries that pained him from then on.

The whole thing happened in the flash of an eye. When I came to, I found I was the only one in the back of the car. I stepped out and went to the front to see how Baba was and saw him reclining in the front seat, with blood on his clothes and face. Even though I saw Baba bleeding, never in my life have I seen such utter radiance and luster as was on Baba's face then! He was like a king, a victorious king who had won a great battle. Lord Krishna must have looked like that in his chariot on the victorious battlefield. The radiance was blinding! I could see nothing else, not the car, nor the surroundings, only Baba's face in glorious triumph!​

​

Reading this, I don't need to be a Christian to understand that God's suffering for humanity is different than our suffering.

Of course the converse would be billions of people that were shocked and surprised of how right they were.

Whether it's called the "kingdom of heaven", the New Creation, the New Humanity, I don't think anyone can fathom the reality given that we "see through a glass, darkly". We are blind and deaf to the reality that is coming. May we soon "see" and "hear" clearly.

That would be true… of course. My point was that atheists say they can be moral too as if there were no differences in morality.

To use a Christian approach, since the Kingdom of God is within everyone one whether they know it or not, whether they be atheist or not, there is no necessary intrinsic difference in morality. Apparently John Wesley did not say these exact words, but he did make statements close enough for me. And there's no reason that anyone, Christian, Hindu, atheist cannot adopt this high morality: Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.

 

[Mock Turtle]

And yet a standard is always set by someone or by God. Someone sets the standard.

No doubt for many of us the standard set more than a thousand years ago is not high enough, and not so easy to change. But such will be more likely if such religious books were just written by other humans rather than having some divine input perhaps. How would they foresee the future any more than we can these days?