Can Christians bring on the end times?

[Leananshee]

OK, then, take Santa Claus, for instance, since you mentioned him. The Santa Claus that lives in the collective subconscious of people today is not the grand inquisitor from the fourth century, but a hybrid of pagan gods of plenty and other myths. Yet while the inquisitor has been rotting for about 1,700 years, the mythical man still has life, comprised of the collective image humans have of him. Doesn't mean you can, because of that, travel to the North Pole and find him, but it's arguable that myth believed in by enough takes on life of its own, just not palpable.

More dangerous, though, if that's the case, is collective belief in the end times, because though the Christian mythos about it is one of renewal, it is renewal borne of destruction. Though God is the one that's supposed to bring that about, enough misguided people with a collective belief in a more human-driven Armageddon could bring the destructive part of it about, to the ruin of humanity. Knowing how easily human minds are led, it shouldn't be hard to imagine the possibility.

tim :eek

 

[Minor Axis]

Man should have one good philosophy to live by. Not the dozens that presently clash.

A nice thought but why? And are we talking philosophy or religion? There is a difference. We have tens if not hundreds of religions because we all can make different guesses about what we know little about.

More dangerous, though, if that's the case, is collective belief in the end times, because though the Christian mythos about it is one of renewal, it is renewal borne of destruction. Though God is the one that's supposed to bring that about, enough misguided people with a collective belief in a more human-driven Armageddon could bring the destructive part of it about, to the ruin of humanity. Knowing how easily human minds are led, it shouldn't be hard to imagine the possibility.

tim :eek

Sadly I can imagine it. But if any of those people would take a second to think about it, wouldn't they realize that God most likely would not approve of their actions?

Speaking of the "end times" as I type I'm watching the Myst and listening to this religious type saying "it's the END TIMES"! But if you know about this Steven King story, it's about a military experiment that goes wrong unleashing monsters in Maine! So if we do it to ourselves, does that constitute end times or just stupid people?

 

[Greatest I am]

A nice thought but why? And are we talking philosophy or religion? There is a difference. We have tens if not hundreds of religions because we all can make different guesses about what we know little about.

The way I see it is that religions offer a way of living life that has merit.
Philosophy offers the same thing.

Philosophy and religions are both selling the same thing with the only exception of note is that religions offers an absentee miracle worker while philosophy offers a human God to lead it.

What do you see as the main difference between them other than what I showed?

Regards
DL

 

[Minor Axis]

The way I see it is that religions offer a way of living life that has merit.
Philosophy offers the same thing.

Philosophy and religions are both selling the same thing with the only exception of note is that religions offers an absentee miracle worker while philosophy offers a human God to lead it.

What do you see as the main difference between them other than what I showed?

Regards
DL

That's a huge difference in my mind.

Philosophy is based on a standard of personal conduct and belief. Tell me about the human Gods who lead philosophical movements? I really don't know of any, but if they are, they are just promoting a moral or belief standard. That is advocacy. Would make them a "false god"?

Religions can have good philosophical standards except for intolerance and I'm sure some minority of religions could or have overcome that, but the leaders of those movements are wrapping it around the absentee miracle worker you describe as if God is the one who created these standards and without God we would not have any standards. Atheists will argue with you vehemently. I think it's been illustrated that you don't have to believe in a God who promotes morals to have morals.

Bottom line- Giving legitimacy to a God based on the legitimacy of morals is just a sales job.

 

[Greatest I am]

That's a huge difference in my mind.

Philosophy is based on a standard of personal conduct and belief.

Exactly the same for religions.

Tell me about the human Gods who lead philosophical movements?

Plato, Socrates et all.

I really don't know of any, but if they are, they are just promoting a moral or belief standard. That is advocacy.

Absolutely. Just like all Religionists advocate their ways.

Would make them a "false god"?

They do not claim Godhood and are not false Gods.

Religions can have good philosophical standards except for intolerance and I'm sure some minority of religions could or have overcome that, but the leaders of those movements are wrapping it around the absentee miracle worker you describe as if God is the one who created these standards and without God we would not have any standards. Atheists will argue with you vehemently. I think it's been illustrated that you don't have to believe in a God who promotes morals to have morals.

Huh.

The Godhead I know believes in morals but you are right in saying that atheists do not need a God to have morals and I would not indicate otherwise.


Bottom line- Giving legitimacy to a God based on the legitimacy of morals is just a sales job.

If a religion came up with the best of the best in terms of a philosophy for living, would you ignore it just because it had a belief in an absentee God?

Would you live some lesser philosophy?

Regards
DL

 

[Minor Axis]

If a religion came up with the best of the best in terms of a philosophy for living, would you ignore it just because it had a belief in an absentee God?

Would you live some lesser philosophy?

Regards
DL

You don't need the God to live up to philosophical standards, especially a God who's true nature is unknown. How do you know what your God stands for other than what the salespeople are pushing as the "religious" agenda?

Philosophy= "treat others as you would have them treat you". (a standard independant of external judgment or reward)
Religion= "sin, i.e. don't follow the rules and you will burn". (a threat).

They are different.

 

[Greatest I am]

You don't need the God to live up to philosophical standards,

I do not know who you mean by the God. What God?

More directly though, you do in a sense need or want a God.

Whose philosophical standard do you live by right now?
Whom ever it originated from, I name as the God of that philosophy.

If you follow democratic laws for instance, your god -loosely named- id Socrates or Plato.

If you follow Marxist type of law, your God would be K. Marx.

especially a God who's true nature is unknown.

I agree. to follow a philosophy that you do not understand is folly.

How do you know what your God stands for other than what the salespeople are pushing as the "religious" agenda?

The God I know has little in common with the status quo Gods being sold.

I found the Godhead through apotheosis.
I do not so much follow It as I just know that it is there and I follow my own thinking. After all, it was that thinking that helped me find It.

It is our next evolution and if an analogy can be used, the tadpole does not follow the frog. The frog would eat it.

It is enough for me to know that it is there.

Philosophy= "treat others as you would have them treat you". (a standard independent of external judgment or reward)

Not so.

If there is no reward in following such a philosophy then there is no reason to follow it.
If treated well, we both are rewarded. If treated ill, we both lose and feel resentment.

Religion= "sin, i.e. don't follow the rules and you will burn". (a threat).

Religions have a problem with the definition of sin and do not relate to a secular discussion.

They are different.

Exactly why I state my last.

Regards
DL

 

[Minor Axis]

There is a huge difference between "God" and someone who is out in front of a widely accepted philosophical belief. There is no way you can confuse the two. Typically "God" is thought to have physical control and power over it's followers, control that for lack of a better word is magic, some unknown divine ability. Along with that are the rules that if not followed result in some kind of punishment that God controls. In contrast a human who expresses their philosophy and that philosophy has gained a wide following, well that's just a smart guy.

And just because God is thought to have power over humans, do we know anything about God, especially his "power" over us? How do we know if God exists does it have any physical power over us? In the physical world, that is purely speculation.

BTW, GIA, you need to work on the formatting or your replies... Your response to me should not show up as a giant quote. If you want to insert your comments between mine, you just need to add the appropriate "quote" (at the beginning) or "/quote" at the end of each section you want to quote. Any questions please feel free to ask without embarrassment.

 

[Greatest I am]

There is a huge difference between "God" and someone who is out in front of a widely accepted philosophical belief. There is no way you can confuse the two. Typically "God" is thought to have physical control and power over it's followers, control that for lack of a better word is magic, some unknown divine ability. Along with that are the rules that if not followed result in some kind of punishment that God controls. In contrast a human who expresses their philosophy and that philosophy has gained a wide following, well that's just a smart guy.

And just because God is thought to have power over humans, do we know anything about God, especially his "power" over us? How do we know if God exists does it have any physical power over us? In the physical world, that is purely speculation.

.

I gave my definition of God, political or religious God, as a philosophy to follow.
They both have authority if the adherent wants to give it to it.

The presence of an invisible God or a live human does not matter.

We all follow a God of some kind. Some human, some absentee.

The mechanics of control and punishment are not relevant between philosophies and in the case of religion, cannot be proven.

Who is your God?

Regards
DL

 

[Minor Axis]

I gave my definition of God, political or religious God, as a philosophy to follow.
They both have authority if the adherent wants to give it to it.

I would disagree with your definition. No hard feelings?

The presence of an invisible God or a live human does not matter.

We all follow a God of some kind. Some human, some absentee.

The mechanics of control and punishment are not relevant between philosophies and in the case of religion, cannot be proven.

Who is your God?

Regards
DL

I don't really have one. If I have to put it into words, if we are talking philosophy, God would not be part of the definition simply because the values of different philosophies are human qualities that exist, where the existence of God is an unknown so I would not associate the two until I have more info to form an opinion based on something more than specualtion. I've not identified a philosophy that I follow that I can assign a name to.

If we are talking spirituality, it would be the unknown God, if there is a God, of which I would not follow anyway based on lack of evidence. But, I'm happy to consider diverse opinions.

Have I had feelings of the divine? If it is an overall sense of well being, or wonder marveling at the Earth and the Universe, yes I've had that feeling. But I don't know what to call it, or if it comes totally from within, from without, or a combination of the two. However, I'm not lost. I feel content and see the end of this Earthly life closer than the beginning and I'm ok with it. I do like the concept that we are part of the energy of the universe and our energy will return to it. The intrigue for me is wondering if individual consciousness will prevail or if there is some mechanism where the lessons of life on Earth are passed on.

 

[Leananshee]

Most Christians don't really understand their own religion or want to.

Here's a thought -- Christ died as a martyr of a radical sect of Judaism that preached that you could have a direct experience of the divine, and those who had such experience would naturally follow the "law", as it were. They also said that those people who went through the motions to be seen being religious were only fooling themselves. The literal meaning of sin is separation, so the super religious, then and now, do just that, and what Christ really died for was to keep the message alive of direct divine experience -- so I guess one could say he died in protest of the sin, or separation, from the divine his people were committing, and knowing his message would travel further with him as a martyr than alive.

Ironically, the church that was built around his memory I would liken more to the Pharisees and Sadducees he protested against. Christianity would have taken a far different turn, including the whole apocalyptic thing, had it not been for Paul, and of course the Romans.

So, in keeping with the original question, sure, why can't Christians bring about the end times? They did, after all, invent the concept.

tim :eek

 

[Minor Axis]

Wikipedia:

"The End Time, End Times, or End of Days are the eschatological writings in the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and in doomsday scenarios in various other non-Abrahamic religions. In Abrahamic religions, End Times are often depicted as a time of tribulation that precedes the appearance or return of the Messiah, a person who will usher in the Kingdom of God and bring an end to suffering and evil. Various other religions also have eschatological beliefs associated with turning and redemption."


If we are going to end up in Heaven anyway, why do we need a perfect Earth? If we spend 1-100 years on a perfect Earth with no pain and suffering and then eternity in heaven, why even bother with running souls though Earth? Unless it's considered a vacation from the eternity...

 

[Greatest I am]

I would disagree with your definition. No hard feelings?



I don't really have one. If I have to put it into words, if we are talking philosophy, God would not be part of the definition simply because the values of different philosophies are human qualities that exist, where the existence of God is an unknown so I would not associate the two until I have more info to form an opinion based on something more than specualtion. I've not identified a philosophy that I follow that I can assign a name to.

I see you as saying you follow an unnamed political God. Instead or one arrow pointing to one God and his philosophy, you presently have many arrows pointing to many political philosophies. They are more like hooks as they only hook into certain parts of the various philosophies. Much like your unknown spiritual God. Parts and pieces of what you can use.

If we are talking spirituality, it would be the unknown God, if there is a God, of which I would not follow anyway based on lack of evidence. But, I'm happy to consider diverse opinions.

For the miracle working super God, we are on the same page.
He is not my God.
Mine is better.

Have I had feelings of the divine? If it is an overall sense of well being, or wonder marveling at the Earth and the Universe, yes I've had that feeling. But I don't know what to call it, or if it comes totally from within, from without, or a combination of the two.

It is the fleeting recognition that what is without is evolving perfection and that that being the case, the same must be so within.

However, I'm not lost. I feel content and see the end of this Earthly life closer than the beginning and I'm ok with it.

It is said that those who fear death, fear life.

I do like the concept that we are part of the energy of the universe and our energy will return to it. The intrigue for me is wondering if individual consciousness will prevail or if there is some mechanism where the lessons of life on Earth are passed on.

Having touched the Godhead the one time I can tell you that consciousness is preserved
No proof or course.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Most Christians don't really understand their own religion or want to.

Here's a thought -- Christ died as a martyr of a radical sect of Judaism that preached that you could have a direct experience of the divine, and those who had such experience would naturally follow the "law", as it were. They also said that those people who went through the motions to be seen being religious were only fooling themselves. The literal meaning of sin is separation, so the super religious, then and now, do just that, and what Christ really died for was to keep the message alive of direct divine experience -- so I guess one could say he died in protest of the sin, or separation, from the divine his people were committing, and knowing his message would travel further with him as a martyr than alive.

Ironically, the church that was built around his memory I would liken more to the Pharisees and Sadducees he protested against. Christianity would have taken a far different turn, including the whole apocalyptic thing, had it not been for Paul, and of course the Romans.

So, in keeping with the original question, sure, why can't Christians bring about the end times? They did, after all, invent the concept.

tim :eek

Goodness. You give them much more credit than they deserve.
Nothing in Christianity is original.
It is just a consolidation of many spiritualities.
The view above with God within and accessible was a Gnostic tradition as far as I know.
The Orthodox Church, Constantine’s Church, believed in the hierarchy of the Church leadership for control. One priest to one Church as it were. The Gnostic way was that any who had gleaned a message from within from apotheosis could and was encouraged to speak.
That is why they were feared by Constantine’s Church.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Wikipedia:

"The End Time, End Times, or End of Days are the eschatological writings in the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and in doomsday scenarios in various other non-Abrahamic religions. In Abrahamic religions, End Times are often depicted as a time of tribulation that precedes the appearance or return of the Messiah, a person who will usher in the Kingdom of God and bring an end to suffering and evil. Various other religions also have eschatological beliefs associated with turning and redemption."


If we are going to end up in Heaven anyway, why do we need a perfect Earth? If we spend 1-100 years on a perfect Earth with no pain and suffering and then eternity in heaven, why even bother with running souls though Earth? Unless it's considered a vacation from the eternity...

Well, they say that any utopia will fail because of boredom.
I guess that we just throw ourselves down here for a bit of pain to offset the pleasure of heaven.

Um, Um.
Gotta love that pain.

We are all S & M.

Regards
DL

 

[Minor Axis]

If you think that humans need challenge, a chance to learn and philosophically grow (which I do) then it puts a completely different light, bringing up questions about the accuracy of the first days of humanity (allegory or not) described in the Bible of how Adam and Eve disobeyed God and blew the human race's change for bliss on Earth. If we were perfect at the start, what would we learn? (I'm thinking more along the lines of morality and philosophy vs technical/scientific knowledge.)

 

[Greatest I am]

If you think that humans need challenge, a chance to learn and philosophically grow (which I do) then it puts a completely different light, bringing up questions about the accuracy of the first days of humanity (allegory or not) described in the Bible of how Adam and Eve disobeyed God and blew the human race's change for bliss on Earth. If we were perfect at the start, what would we learn? (I'm thinking more along the lines of morality and philosophy vs technical/scientific knowledge.)

The Christians usd the old Hebrew story for Genesis but unlike the brighter Jews, they reversed the story from a fall up to knowledge of good and evil, the same knowledge that gives us our moral sense, to a fall down because we disobeyed the god that wanted to keep us ignorant and in mental chains.

Go figure.

Perhaps this is why many think the church to be the Anti-Christ.

They might be right.

Regards
DL