The Rapture Index

[Dicky Underpants]

I should mention that these moments of petulance and indeed violence in the NT are what the fundamentalists and their ilk tap into. I once heard the Reverend Ian Paisley justifying murders by Ulster Loyalists by quoting Christ's words "I come not to bring peace, but a SWORD"
No doubt others have seen fit to justify their actions by quoting Jesus' extraordinary words at Luke 22: 36-38
"Anyone who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I should mention that these moments of petulance and indeed violence in the NT are what the fundamentalists and their ilk tap into. I once heard the Reverend Ian Paisley justifying murders by Ulster Loyalists by quoting Christ's words "I come not to bring peace, but a SWORD"
No doubt others have seen fit to justify their actions by quoting Jesus' extraordinary words at Luke 22: 36-38
"Anyone who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one."

Ah, the very atheist process of turning Christianity into something far more opposable has been captured....the moment Underpants changed Christianity into Swordism.

As far as I know Paisley became a model for reconciliation.

[Dicky Underpants]

Ah, the very atheist process of turning Christianity into something far more opposable has been captured....the moment Underpants changed Christianity into Swordism.

As far as I know Paisley became a model for reconciliation.

What! You want to exonerate Paisley? Try learning something about his disgusting behaviour before he realised it was expedient not to keep pouring petrol on the flames.
If you want Paisley as a model 'Christian' on your side, you can have him.
Besides, it's fairly obvious for anyone with two brain cells that what Paisley was doing was the typical fundie trick of picking through the scriptures to justify any kind of inhuman behaviour. But the texts are there, and need convincing exegesis, not exploitation by those with blood on their hands.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah, the very atheist process of turning Christianity into something far more opposable has been captured....the moment Underpants changed Christianity into Swordism.

As far as I know Paisley became a model for reconciliation.

Nonsense - Paisley opposed the peace process, opposed the Good Friday Agreement, opposed the power sharing agreements. He only became a convert when the DUP won an election and therefore he had the opportunity to become First Minister and therefore gain power. His motivation was much more about power than reconciliation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What! You want to exonerate Paisley? Try learning something about his disgusting behaviour before he realised it was expedient not to keep pouring petrol on the flames.
If you want Paisley as a model 'Christian' on your side, you can have him.
Besides, it's fairly obvious for anyone with two brain cells that what Paisley was doing was the typical fundie trick of picking through the scriptures to justify any kind of inhuman behaviour. But the texts are there, and need convincing exegesis, not exploitation by those with blood on their hands.

Oh and here we have Christianity turned into Paisleyism...as once it was turned into Phelpsism.
The upshot of this being that anything you don't like, christianity encompasses it?

[Dicky Underpants]

Oh and here we have Christianity turned into Paisleyism...as once it was turned into Phelpsism.
The upshot of this being that anything you don't like, christianity encompasses it?

I don't quite know what's going on in your topsy-turvy world, Vlad, and I'll soon leave you to sink in the mire of your own misrepresentations. First you support Paisley, now you object because you think he's being put forward as a prime example of a Christian. The point I was making is that he is NOT. But Christianity has to take on board the 'hard sayings' and give a convincing explanation of them. Stop tilting at windmills.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't quite know what's going on in your topsy-turvy world, Vlad, and I'll soon leave you to sink in the mire of your own misrepresentations. First you support Paisley, now you object because you think he's being put forward as a prime example of a Christian. The point I was making is that he is NOT. But Christianity has to take on board the 'hard sayings' and give a convincing explanation of them. Stop tilting at windmills.

let's not forget your two unsubstantiated accusations here

You want to exonerate Paisley

and

you want Paisley as a model 'Christian' on your side

.

As for ''Swordism''. Swords are often used as a metaphor and the advice to carry a sword was cultural given the situation in Palestine at that time. Anachronistic now. Shrivelling fig trees and kicking spivs up the rear? I'm not specifically exercised by the former and probably in favour of the latter.

[Outrider]

As for ''Swordism''. Swords are often used as a metaphor and the advice to carry a sword was cultural given the situation in Palestine at that time. Anachronistic now. Shrivelling fig trees and kicking spivs up the rear? I'm not specifically exercised by the former and probably in favour of the latter.

Which elements someone decides are to be taken literally and which figuratively are decisions up to the individual, and there's no reliable way to say definitively who is right or wrong. I might, personally, prefer your take, but I can't offer anything to someone with the opposing view to say that they are objectively wrong in their interpretation, which is part of the problem with scripture.

Those 'swordists' are just as earnest in their belief, and equally (un?)justified. That ambiguity does nothing but call into question the idea of divine inspiration for the document itself - certainly the wisest being in existence would have been able to be clearer in its meaning?

O.

[jeremyp]

let's not forget your two unsubstantiated accusations hereand.

As for ''Swordism''. Swords are often used as a metaphor and the advice to carry a sword was cultural given the situation in Palestine at that time. Anachronistic now. Shrivelling fig trees and kicking spivs up the rear? I'm not specifically exercised by the former and probably in favour of the latter.

The fig tree incident shows that God the creator of Heaven and Earth and perfect being was capable of extreme petulance when a plant that he allegedly designed behaved in the way that he designed it.

In the face of incidents like that, it's no wonder that most people in the World don't take Christian claims seriously.

[Dicky Underpants]

let's not forget your two unsubstantiated accusations hereand.

As for ''Swordism''. Swords are often used as a metaphor and the advice to carry a sword was cultural given the situation in Palestine at that time. Anachronistic now. Shrivelling fig trees and kicking spivs up the rear? I'm not specifically exercised by the former and probably in favour of the latter.

Unsubstantiated accusations? Are you taking the piss? I accuse Paisley of using the scriptures to promote violence (he did). Quick as a flash you come back and say "Paisley was a model for reconciliation".
Then you accuse me of wanting to turn Christianity into Paisleyism (with the implication that Paisley has suddenly become a negative figure in Christianity in your eyes).

Also, it might help if you read  the opening post of mine in which I set the context of how principally American fundamentalists are using the scriptures to promote the most dangerous and possibly life-threatening ideas.

Get your head out of your arse.

P.S. Have you been taking lessons from the Sergei Lavrov handbook "The ABC of how to lie your head off and still keep a straight face"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unsubstantiated accusations? Are you taking the piss? I accuse Paisley of using the scriptures to promote violence (he did). Quick as a flash you come back and say "Paisley was a model for reconciliation".
Then you accuse me of wanting to turn Christianity into Paisleyism (with the implication that Paisley has suddenly become a negative figure in Christianity in your eyes).

Also, it might help if you read  the opening post of mine in which I set the context of how principally American fundamentalists are using the scriptures to promote the most dangerous and possibly life-threatening ideas.

Get your head out of your arse.

P.S. Have you been taking lessons from the Sergei Lavrov handbook "The ABC of how to lie your head off and still keep a straight face"?

You confused me with Paisley thus proving my thesis of what you base your notions of Christianity on.

American evangelicalism has become a blend of Christianity, folk religion, shamanism, white nationalism. How Christian it is depends on the emphasis. And let's not forget black Christians which evangelicals and atheists seem to.

[ProfessorDavey]

You confused me with Paisley thus proving my thesis of what you base your notions of Christianity on.

American evangelicalism has become a blend of Christianity, folk religion, shamanism, white nationalism. How Christian it is depends on the emphasis. And let's not forget black Christians which evangelicals and atheists seem to.

I don't think DU is confusing you with Paisley at all. I think he is merely stating that there are all sorts of christians - including ones you may find repulsive yourself.

And this is the key point as far as I am concerned - practicing christians come in all shapes and sizes, from the completely harmless and highly charitable elderly lady who attends a CofE church every Sunday and spends lots of time (which she has as she is retired) helping out with various charities and organisations. All the way through to the odious and highly harmful evangelical hate preachers who whip up hatred against those who they see as sinful, whether that be gay people or people who don't hold to their religious views, to those of different race etc.

So these are both active christians, as are all in the spectrum from one to the other. The issue is that there are plenty of christians (including you Vlad) who seem to want to pretend that the christians you don't like, who's view you find questionable or worse aren't really christians. Well, here's the thing Vlad - they are, and their views (regardless of whether you like them or not) are motivated by their christian beliefs.

[SweetPea]

Considering the current events in Ukraine, I decided to have a look at what Christian End Time groups were making of the scenario, especially those in the USA. It is as I feared. The 'Rapture' enthusiasts (the reference is to 1 Thessalonians, I believe) are working themselves into a froth over the tragedy, led by some of the old-time fundie mouthpieces of yesteryear (especially Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey). Would you believe that there is a "Rapture Index"? Indeed there is, and the top level is 188 - we currently stand on 186.

Naturally enough, so many of these American "enthusiasts" are all set to inflame an already terrible situation, in the belief that it will hasten their ultimate "redemption". Woe to the world.

Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey and most (if not all) American pastors preach the deception of futurism. The so-called pre-trib,  'rapture' is a misinterpretation of scripture. The idea originates from two Jesuits, theologian Francisco Ribera and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. It then seeped through to the protestant churches and took hold with John Nelson Darby, Cyrus Schofield and Clarence Larkin. 

[Dicky Underpants]

Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey and most (if not all) American pastors preach the deception of futurism. The so-called pre-trib,  'rapture' is a misinterpretation of scripture. The idea originates from two Jesuits, theologian Francisco Ribera and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. It then seeped through to the protestant churches and took hold with John Nelson Darby, Cyrus Schofield and Clarence Larkin.

If you by 'futurism' the literal interpretation of apocalyptic scripture as referring to real future events, I'd say it had a pretty long history. I'm also pretty sure most of the early Christians took these scriptures literally (hence the words in that letter attributed to Peter that "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years".) I think it was St Augustine who put forward the idea that the prophesied "Kingdom" had arrived with the establishment of the Church. Nonetheless, literal interpretations have never gone away down the ages, and indeed abounded during the Middle Ages (see Norman Cohn: In Pursuit of the Millennium)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So these are both active christians,

Please define active christianity. The point I think I want to make here is that my definition of active marxism for example would probably be much more on the mark than your definition of active christianity which itself is likely to be corrupted to classifybad things as ''christian''.

as are all in the spectrum from one to the other. The issue is that there are plenty of christians (including you Vlad) who seem to want to pretend that the christians you don't like, who's view you find questionable or worse aren't really christians. Well, here's the thing Vlad - they are, and their views (regardless of whether you like them or not) are motivated by their christian beliefs.

I'm more concerned with how you see christian beliefs since you've pretty obviously stopped listening or paying attention to the mainstream in favour of focussing on the extreme.

What Christian beliefs shared by all Christians do you think Paisley is motivated by? I have my buzzer ready to eliminate 17th and 18th century british political motivations you may bring up.

[ProfessorDavey]

Please define active christianity.

Err, someone who actively practices their religion, for example through one or more of the following:

1. Attending christian religious worship.
2. Engaging in christian prayer
3. Considering that what they do in their daily lives is motivated by their christian religious belief.

What Christian beliefs shared by all Christians do you think Paisley is motivated by?

A belief that Jesus is the son of god, died for our sins and was resurrected.
 

I have my buzzer ready to eliminate 17th and 18th century british political motivations you may bring up.

You can put your buzzer away - see above.

[jeremyp]

Please define active christianity. The point I think I want to make here is that my definition of active marxism for example would probably be much more on the mark than your definition of active christianity which itself is likely to be corrupted to classifybad things as ''christian''. I'm more concerned with how you see christian beliefs since you've pretty obviously stopped listening or paying attention to the mainstream in favour of focussing on the extreme.

What Christian beliefs shared by all Christians do you think Paisley is motivated by? I have my buzzer ready to eliminate 17th and 18th century british political motivations you may bring up.

I sense a Scotsman that doesn't eat porridge hoving into view.

Can you name any belief that is shared by all Christians?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I sense a Scotsman that doesn't eat porridge hoving into view.

Can you name any belief that is shared by all Christians?

Are you saying all christians believe totally incompatible thing from each other and whereas it is possible to tell a marxist or a mathematician it is impossible to spot a christian belief?

In which case we must assume that anything you say about christianity is made up?

[Aruntraveller]

In which case we must assume that anything you say about christianity is made up?

No. I think, more accurately, that particular statement applies to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. I think, more accurately, that particular statement applies to you.

What have I made up about christianity then?........In your own time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Err, someone who actively practices their religion, for example through one or more of the following:

1. Attending christian religious worship.
2. Engaging in christian prayer
3. Considering that what they do in their daily lives is motivated by their christian religious belief.
A belief that Jesus is the son of god, died for our sins and was resurrected.
 You can put your buzzer away - see above.

Any definition of christianity which includes or is based on the word christian is rather inadequate isn't it Davey?

As far as believing that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected is concerned I find nothing in that which would in evitably lead to Paisleyan behaviour. Do enlighten us, please.

[ProfessorDavey]

Any definition of christianity which includes or is based on the word christian is rather inadequate isn't it Davey?

Sure - but it is rather self evident that a christian is a person who believes in the teachings of christianity and an active christian is someone who goes one step further and is active in following those beliefs. But you seemed to claim that there isn't some feature that defines christians and active christians.

As far as believing that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected is concerned I find nothing in that which would in evitably lead to Paisleyan behaviour. Do enlighten us, please.

You may not, but Paisley presumably did. This is the point - while all christians may have a defining belief that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected, thereafter their interpretation of those fundamental beliefs and how it motivates their actions divides.

[Sebastian Toe]

Are you saying all christians believe totally incompatible thing from each other and whereas it is possible to tell a marxist or a mathematician it is impossible to spot a christian belief?

In which case we must assume that anything you say about christianity is made up?

I find it interesting that you were unwilling or unable to actually answer the question.

Which is it?...in your own time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I find it interesting that you were unwilling or unable to actually answer the question.

Which is it?...in your own time.

And that question is?

[jeremyp]

Are you saying all christians believe totally incompatible thing from each other and whereas it is possible to tell a marxist or a mathematician it is impossible to spot a christian belief?

In which case we must assume that anything you say about christianity is made up?

No. I just want you to clarify which beliefs you think all Christians hold.