Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This, most particularly, includes a world-wide government by the bad guys
> > persecuting God's chosen ones; only after that most glorious battle at
> > Harmagedon would this be overthrown, and replaced by another world-wide
> > government of the Messiah himself.
>
> Then, if the end result is a world-wide government of the Messiah, why
> wouldn't they welcome this, instead of fear it? Sure, things will be
> tough, and an epic battle will be unpleasant, but the final result is
> positive, right?

Yeah, but even while welcoming it as a necessary step, they as the good ones


(And after all, who does *really* want to live in the times of Tribulation, if
they're not *perfectly* sure they'll be strong enough to stand the suffering?)


> > That's the answer to your question. Not my invention, so don't shoot the
> > messenger.
>
> Never ;) No, I fully understand that. I just don't fully understand the
> rampant paranoia by certain sects of the religion...

You'll never will, unless you really and unconditionally open up to their Gospel
teachings. Or brainwashing lessons if you like. Abandon questioning all ye who
enter here. I know what I'm speaking about: Been there, done that.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> 
> You'll never will, unless you really and unconditionally open up to their Gospel
> teachings. Or brainwashing lessons if you like. Abandon questioning all ye who
> enter here. I know what I'm speaking about: Been there, done that.
> 

Yeah, I've had more that the requisite experience with these types. 
Quite common where I live. They have a way of identifying themselves 
with a key question that sends me looking for the nearest exit or escape 
route.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Then, if the end result is a world-wide government of the Messiah, why 
> wouldn't they welcome this, instead of fear it? 

The same reason they wear seat belts.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 29-7-2009 18:33, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> I realise, of course, that world peace is improbable, we as humans will
>> always have something to squabble about.
> 
> As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
> a lawyer.

a midwife?

Post a reply to this message

On 29-7-2009 18:33, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> I realise, of course, that world peace is improbable, we as humans will
>> always have something to squabble about.
> 
> As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
> a lawyer.

a snake?

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
> > a lawyer.

> a snake?

  What's the difference?-)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>> clipka wrote:
>>
>>> Read John's Apocalypsis, particularly the sections about the Big Bad Beast
>>> apparently conspiring to unite all nations against God's Good Guys.
>> Er, right... because we can't have all nations uniting to bring world
>> peace, or something like that. It just doesn't make sense that the
>> altruistic goal of peacful unity could be considered evil.
>>
>> I realise, of course, that world peace is improbable, we as humans will
>> always have something to squabble about.
> 
> That's not the way those particular type of christians you were talking about
> are thinking.
> 
> They do interpret John's Apocalypsis to be a prophecy, and they expect things to
> happen as described there (or as they read them to be described there).
> 
> This, most particularly, includes a world-wide government by the bad guys
> persecuting God's chosen ones; only after that most glorious battle at
> Harmagedon would this be overthrown, and replaced by another world-wide
> government of the Messiah himself.
> 
> So whatever first world-wide government there would ever be, according to
> fundamental christian's interpretation of the bible, those must be the bad guys
> mentioned in John's Apocalypsis.
> 
> That's the answer to your question. Not my invention, so don't shoot the
> messenger.
> 
> 
Given how much time these same morons spend trying to turn everyone 
Christian, fund the UN, and force everyone to be American like, I have 
always been rather confused as to why they ***possibly*** imagine 
themselves to be on God's side, instead of the Beasts. lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why are certain forms of Christianity so scared of nation working
> together cooperatively (i.e. a single world government)?
> --
> ~Mike

Three theological movements: Dispensationalism, Theology of Glory, and
Antinomianism.  Plus idolatry of the state and confusing the United States with
the New Israel.


Some might not be threatened by worldwide humanitarian cooperation if your
Theology were one of the Cross, where the devotion of living an examined life
(including examining one's contribution to social woes) reminds one of one's
need for the saving grace of Jesus. Here, sin and death and suffering are the
primary problem, and the cross is the primary solution.


On the other hand, if you're practicing a Theology of Glory, damnation is the
primary problem, and choosing to accept Jesus is the primary solution. Sin is
reduced to a few nominal and childish vices (gay relations, drunkenness,
impatience with spouse). Evangelization becomes more about mocking those who've
picked the wrong spiritual "football team", quite different from the
witness-and-social-reform movements of 19th century evangelists.  If your focus
is on getting the best seat on the bus/ fighter-jet in the End Times, as is the
focus in many popular forms of Dispensationalism, you'll skip over the old
testament lessons that show God's concern for the poor, and look instead in
these passages for ways to come out ahead-- how you can find the be the first
to find "the signs".  The entire focus eventually becomes Antinomian, where any
mention of the law, especially social sins, is somewhere between ignored and
decried.  In these theologies are also a confusion of the Church, the New
Israel,  with the United States.  It's mere idolatry.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > > As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
> > > a lawyer.
>
> > a snake?
>
>   What's the difference?-)

The tie.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
>>>> a lawyer.
>>> a snake?
>>   What's the difference?-)
> 
> The tie.

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20000701.html

Not as much as you'd think.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message