rapture...priceless

[hitekredneck]

this is fuckin funny...i believe in god, but am no christian...i have no problems with christians nor atheists nor muslims, provided they do not denigrate my or others' beliefs...now that that's done, this is pretty funny, if not a little hippocritical...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-05-08-post-rapture_N.htm

[something]

That is funny, what surprise me the most is that more then 2 people subscribed.

[hitekredneck]

That is funny, what surprise me the most is that more then 2 people subscribed.

kinda makes me wish i'lda thunk of it...lmfaoooo:D

[General Septem]

lmfao, that's the funniest shit I've seen XD

As a Catholic, I don't believe in the Rapture either, so I have to say this guy is smart. :D

[chihuahua236]

lmfao, that's the funniest shit I've seen XD

As a Catholic, I don't believe in the Rapture either, so I have to say this guy is smart. :D

im with you on that one.:D

[Vladik]

i believe in god, but am no christian...i have no problems with christians nor atheists nor muslims, provided they do not denigrate my or others' beliefs

What? I don't get it, you believe something, but don't mind other people's beliefs, as long as everybody plays nice? That's one of the best examples of relativism I've seen in a long time. Jolly good show.

[Loseirdo]

lmfao, that's the funniest shit I've seen XD

As a Catholic, I don't believe in the Rapture either, so I have to say this guy is smart. :D

Nice to see other Catholics hangin' about in places like this. :D This also made me smile.

You don't think we're racking up time in purgatory for regularly visiting forum.bullshit.com, do you? I think it's a worthy sacrifice...

[freakazoid]

Yes, but I would love a photo of his face if it happened. It would probably look something like...


http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/6413/astonishedbd6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



OH SSSSSSSHHHHHHIT!!



Or, maybe like this...

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

In other words, the little smart ass might just be eating his words sooner than he thinks...just a thought.

[something]

Or, maybe like this...[/SIZE][/B]

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

In other words, the little smart ass might just be eating his words sooner than he thinks...just a thought.

That's kinda creepy...

[General Septem]

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

Looks like nothing more than fear mongering to me, to be honest.

Quick question though, do you believe that it's possible for someone to be "saved" after the rapture occurs?

[freakazoid]

Looks like nothing more than fear mongering to me, to be honest.

Quick question though, do you believe that it's possible for someone to be "saved" after the rapture occurs?


Absolutely I do.

[freakazoid]

That's kinda creepy...

:D Yeah, it is, but this is more so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yItJpd0VeAU&mode=related&search=

[Loseirdo]

but I'm so damn bored. :)

The Protestant view on this matter still confuses me. Most Protestants I've met have had relatively the same opinion on this, so forgive me if I act a little presumptious.

The general Protestant consensus seems to be that the book of Genesis is literal, the book of Revelation is literal, but Jesus' "body and blood" speach was metaphorical. The first two seem a bit more...well, let's face it, ridiculous than the third, so why are they so much easier to believe? For that matter, why do Protestants continue to deny the existence of Saints when they are explicitly mentioned in the book of Revelation? And what is this whole "rapture" nonsense, anyway? So Jesus is going to come back -- that would be the second coming -- grab a bunch of people, leave, wait seven years, then come back again? I don't remember the third coming of Christ mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

If you're curious, the Catholic belief is that the book of Revelation was largely metaphorical and was merely written in the apocalyptic style -- as were many pieces of literature at that time. Christ is only going to make one more trip to our little mudball. At that time the dead will rise and all will be judged at once -- for good. None of this "third time's a charm" nonsense.

[hitekredneck]

but I'm so damn bored. :)

The Protestant view on this matter still confuses me. Most Protestants I've met have had relatively the same opinion on this, so forgive me if I act a little presumptious.

The general Protestant consensus seems to be that the book of Genesis is literal, the book of Revelation is literal, but Jesus' "body and blood" speach was metaphorical. The first two seem a bit more...well, let's face it, ridiculous than the third, so why are they so much easier to believe? For that matter, why do Protestants continue to deny the existence of Saints when they are explicitly mentioned in the book of Revelation? And what is this whole "rapture" nonsense, anyway? So Jesus is going to come back -- that would be the second coming -- grab a bunch of people, leave, wait seven years, then come back again? I don't remember the third coming of Christ mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

If you're curious, the Catholic belief is that the book of Revelation was largely metaphorical and was merely written in the apocalyptic style -- as were many pieces of literature at that time. Christ is only going to make one more trip to our little mudball. At that time the dead will rise and all will be judged at once -- for good. None of this "third time's a charm" nonsense.

this is exactly why i have a problem with the bible....the words stay the same, but each religion translates it to best suit their needs....not to mention the fact that it's been "translated" innumerable times by men who might not see anything wrong with a less than literal translation...

[Loseirdo]

this is exactly why i have a problem with the bible....the words stay the same, but each religion translates it to best suit their needs....not to mention the fact that it's been "translated" innumerable times by men who might not see anything wrong with a less than literal translation...

That certainly is a problem. The hope is that when you have a few hundred people studying the texts (as many translations that still exist) together, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, you'll eventually arrive at the "correct" interpretation. That's one reason I side with the Catholic Church on matters of Biblical interpretation -- they don't make anything official unless they're damn sure they're right. On the flip side, most Protestant churches start up because one guy "didn't like it" and decided that all the Cardinals, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and the Pope were wrong.

[hitekredneck]

That certainly is a problem. The hope is that when you have a few hundred people studying the texts (as many translations that still exist) together, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, you'll eventually arrive at the "correct" interpretation. That's one reason I side with the Catholic Church on matters of Biblical interpretation -- they don't make anything official unless they're damn sure they're right. On the flip side, most Protestant churches start up because one guy "didn't like it" and decided that all the Cardinals, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and the Pope were wrong.

no offense intended, but isn't that akin to givin a million chimps a typewriter and waiting for shakespear? :D

[Loseirdo]

no offense intended, but isn't that akin to givin a million chimps a typewriter and waiting for shakespear? :D

That implies that we already know what we're looking for. ;)

[hitekredneck]

That implies that we already know what we're looking for. ;)

see, therein lies another problem....when a scientist is running an experiment with the expectation of a "wanted" answer, they sometimes have the tendancy to twist the results toward their answer

[Loseirdo]

see, therein lies another problem....when a scientist is running an experiment with the expectation of a "wanted" answer, they sometimes have the tendancy to twist the results toward their answer

Agreed, but I'm not sure what that has to do with biblical interpretation.

[hitekredneck]

Agreed, but I'm not sure what that has to do with biblical interpretation.

simplicity in itself....just as the scientist has a tendency to skew the data towards the "expected" results, the interpreters do the same with language...exp since you lose meaning through each and every translation...you have the literal results that may not mean what they're supposed to ;)

[Loseirdo]

simplicity in itself....just as the scientist has a tendency to skew the data towards the "expected" results, the interpreters do the same with language...exp since you lose meaning through each and every translation...you have the literal results that may not mean what they're supposed to ;)

True enough, but you have to remember who wrote the New Testament in the first place -- Catholics (the very first Christians). Not to mention the fact that the Pope decided which books would be included. If they skewed a translation to fit their interpretation -- and that interpretation was incorrect -- the Church would have found it and corrected it by now. I mean, they've had more than 1,500 years (I forget when the first Bible came about). The real problem is when a Protestant like King James translates the Bible to fit his interpretation when the form from which he's translating is already skewed. I trust the Catholic interpretation because they've been on top of things from the beginning. If anybody knows what's going on, it's them.

[General Septem]

Very true. In addition, Martin Luther himself is known to have added a word into the German translation of the Bible. He added the word alone to the verse that says, "It is by faith that we are saved, not by works of the law." He added, "It is by faith alone that we are saved". But the only place "faith alone" is ever seen in the Bible is in another book where it says, "not by faith alone are we saved".

I mean, the very name "Lutheran" implies that following Martin Luther is more important to these people than following Christ. It doesn't make sense.

[hitekredneck]

True enough, but you have to remember who wrote the New Testament in the first place -- Catholics (the very first Christians). Not to mention the fact that the Pope decided which books would be included. If they skewed a translation to fit their interpretation -- and that interpretation was incorrect -- the Church would have found it and corrected it by now. I mean, they've had more than 1,500 years (I forget when the first Bible came about). The real problem is when a Protestant like King James translates the Bible to fit his interpretation when the form from which he's translating is already skewed. I trust the Catholic interpretation because they've been on top of things from the beginning. If anybody knows what's going on, it's them.

see, my problem with the bible goes beyond catholic, lutheran, and protestant translations...you not only have the "literal" translations from one language to another, but you also have individual interpretations of what the words mean exactly, which can be completely different from one person to the next...personally, i enjoy my relationship with god...the god i believe in, anyway....i know what he expects from me and i try to deliver...i don't need a book to tell me how to do that....

[Loseirdo]

see, my problem with the bible goes beyond catholic, lutheran, and protestant translations...you not only have the "literal" translations from one language to another, but you also have individual interpretations of what the words mean exactly, which can be completely different from one person to the next...personally, i enjoy my relationship with god...the god i believe in, anyway....i know what he expects from me and i try to deliver...i don't need a book to tell me how to do that....

Then you're doing better than most and I say keep on. The Bible is more than a book of rules, though (that's what the Torah is); it's the very word of God given to man so that we may better understand, love and appreciate Him. Interpretations of the book will vary. That's only to be expected. I'm simply saying that the Catholics are ahead of the game in that respect, since we've been dealing with the Bible since the very beginning.

[WhiteRaven]

how exactly do you know the bible is the word of god when it was written by humans?

also, have you read the whole bible?

[Loseirdo]

how exactly do you know the bible is the word of god when it was written by humans?

also, have you read the whole bible?

It's impossible to prove that the Bible is the word of God just as it is impossible to even prove the existence of God. But there are several things that lead us to that conclusion.

Jesus existed. We have plenty of evidence to show that outside of the Bible. Because he existed, there are two possible forms he could have existed in: messianic or non-messianic. If we take the gospels to be an accurate account of Jesus' life and works, there is enough evidence to support the idea that He was, in fact, the messiah. If we accept that Jesus was the messiah, that means everything within the gospels must be true, including the existence of the Holy Spirit, and we can therefore believe that it was the Holy Spirit that inspired the Bible in the first place. If the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and we accept that the Holy Spirit is God, that means the Bible is the word of God transcribed by man. In case you were wondering, I don't believe the Bible simply fell out of the sky one day.

But again, this line of thinking requires that you believe that Jesus was the messiah. It all comes down to a matter of faith.

And as a side note, we ("we" being Catholics) believe that the Holy Spirit not only inspired the writing of the books in the Bible, but also the Pope in deciding which books would be included and the Church in deciding exactly what the Bible means.

And if you mean "the whole bible" as in cover-to-cover, no, I have not. I have read most of the Bible and have probably heard anything I haven't read at Mass. The Catholic Church is very good about reading scripture and follows a specific order -- unlike most protestant churches where the preacher simply chooses whatever passage he feels like talking about. So while I can't say that I've read the entire Bible, I can say that I have a very good understanding of it.

[hitekredneck]

It's impossible to prove that the Bible is the word of God just as it is impossible to even prove the existence of God. But there are several things that lead us to that conclusion.

Jesus existed. We have plenty of evidence to show that outside of the Bible. Because he existed, there are two possible forms he could have existed in: messianic or non-messianic. If we take the gospels to be an accurate account of Jesus' life and works, there is enough evidence to support the idea that He was, in fact, the messiah. If we accept that Jesus was the messiah, that means everything within the gospels must be true, including the existence of the Holy Spirit, and we can therefore believe that it was the Holy Spirit that inspired the Bible in the first place. If the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and we accept that the Holy Spirit is God, that means the Bible is the word of God transcribed by man. In case you were wondering, I don't believe the Bible simply fell out of the sky one day.

But again, this line of thinking requires that you believe that Jesus was the messiah. It all comes down to a matter of faith.

And as a side note, we ("we" being Catholics) believe that the Holy Spirit not only inspired the writing of the books in the Bible, but also the Pope in deciding which books would be included and the Church in deciding exactly what the Bible means.

And if you mean "the whole bible" as in cover-to-cover, no, I have not. I have read most of the Bible and have probably heard anything I haven't read at Mass. The Catholic Church is very good about reading scripture and follows a specific order -- unlike most protestant churches where the preacher simply chooses whatever passage he feels like talking about. So while I can't say that I've read the entire Bible, I can say that I have a very good understanding of it.

good explanation...and you need to follow it just a lil further...everything...life...the universe...it's all a matter of faith...i do believe that jesus was an actual man, and perhaps an extraordinary man at that...but we all are the sons of god, which in my mind, makes us all equal in god's eyes...messiah?...perhaps...but there's too little known about the man until the new testament takes place...how about his childhood?...his teenage years?...i guess until these questions are answered, we only have our faith to go on ;)

btw, i HAVE read the bible, and some of the quran, and even some of the mormon bible...haven't any interest in what jehovas read, tho...i don't usually denigrate a faith, but to believe that only a couple hundred thousand souls are going to be saved...it wouldn't give me the proper motivation to follow the faith

[Loseirdo]

good explanation...and you need to follow it just a lil further...everything...life...the universe...it's all a matter of faith...i do believe that jesus was an actual man, and perhaps an extraordinary man at that...but we all are the sons of god, which in my mind, makes us all equal in god's eyes...messiah?...perhaps...but there's too little known about the man until the new testament takes place...how about his childhood?...his teenage years?...i guess until these questions are answered, we only have our faith to go on ;)

btw, i HAVE read the bible, and some of the quran, and even some of the mormon bible...haven't any interest in what jehovas read, tho...i don't usually denigrate a faith, but to believe that only a couple hundred thousand souls are going to be saved...it wouldn't give me the proper motivation to follow the faith

The Jehovah's Witnesses make me laugh. If they only believe that 144,000 people will be saved (12,000 from each tribe of Israel), why are they trying to spread their faith? Wouldn't that make it less likely that they themselves will be saved? But I digress.

It's true that nothing is known about Jesus' adolescence, but we can probably assume that since nobody wrote about it, it wasn't worth mentioning. You'll notice that very little is actually said about His life, suggesting that everything that was mentioned had been included for a reason. His childhood is mentioned for several reasons -- to give a little background, to illustrate his relationship with his parents, and to demonstrate his great wisdom, even at such a young age. The Bible then fast-forwards to his adulthood because that was when he began working miracles.

It's true that we are all children of God, but Jesus was the only Son of God, as is mentioned at his conception. In fact, that whole passage was heavy with theological implications. Those who believe that Jesus was the messiah accept that He was without sin, but many people don't realize that his mother, Mary, was without sin as well. This can be seen when she is first greeted by the angel Gabriel: "Hail, Mary, full of grace; the Lord is with you." "Grace", or "sanctifying grace", as it is often called, is God's gift to conscious beings for our salvation. Because sin is a turning away from God, and therefore a turning away from salvation, we can see that being "full of grace" necessarily means "without sin". Since Christ had not yet instituted forgiveness of sins (as he had not even been born yet), this would also mean that she had been sinless her entire life. This in and of itself is a great feat, but it also means that she was born without original sin -- the first sin of Adam. She therefore would have had to have been conceived without original sin, which is where we get the term "immaculate conception". You can see now why we place Mary in such high regard.

This probably caused as many problems as it solved, but I'm always eager to shed a little light on my faith. :)

[starry123nights]

Okay now that's some funny shit....good way to make some money though....The bible is a book that tells alot of stories.....it's been written by man....oh yeah it was inspired by god....and man rewrote it and rewrote it and rewrote it and so on and so on.....I guess I just have no faith in something that I can not be proven true(I'm only talking about having faith in god)....I really don't like religion at all. I've read several different bibles....so many different religions...so much different bullshit...so many do's and dont's....I am so NOT religious.