Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[Seastallion]

I don't think we are quite at the Atlas Shrugged world just yet, but we are certainly dangerously trending in that direction. I don't think Ayn Rand was a 'prophet', I think she was just experienced, and was able to make an accurate prediction based on that experience.

People in the U.S. still have the capacity to help each other. The aftermath of various disasters has proven that. We can still come together and support one another. That is happening in the places hard hit by Hurricane Sandy now. The gov't hasn't been much help, so the citizens are helping each other. They have been working together to clean up their neighborhoods and to assist the elderly that can't get out for themselves. This has always been the American way, it sometimes just takes tragedies to reawaken that spirit within us these days, sometimes. Of course, you still get those in who the worst of humanity comes out, but for most people, it is to reach out and help their neighbors, rather than steal from them. It is a hopeful thing.

[Gatefan1976]

Some reading for you SGalisa, seeing as though you were referencing revalations before, believe, not believe, up to you, but it IS interesting:
http://www.chick.com/information/rel...sevenhills.asp

[mad_gater]

*laughs hysterically*

That Jack Chick whackjob is so nutty not even most of his fellow Protestants would listen to him.....

[Gatefan1976]

*laughs hysterically*

That Jack Chick whackjob is so nutty not even most of his fellow Protestants would listen to him.....

I didn't claim any veracity of the peice MG, I just said it was interesting.

[mad_gater]

I didn't claim any veracity of the peice MG, I just said it was interesting.

it's interesting alright...an interesting example of borderline insanity....

[Gatefan1976]

it's interesting alright...an interesting example of borderline insanity....

What about the author of the book in question?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Hu...ian_apologist)

[mad_gater]

What about the author of the book in question?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Hu...ian_apologist)

can tell he ain't fond of Catholics and uses a rather fuzzy interpretation of sacred Scripture to try to make his case....

[Gatefan1976]

can tell he ain't fond of Catholics and uses a rather fuzzy interpretation of sacred Scripture to try to make his case....

According to the above link, it's not just catholics he is not fond of. The disparity of belief in Christianity (as a whole entity) used to suprise me a great deal. I can easily understand tension between Satanists (which break down into thier own groups as well) and Christians as they are "natural" enemies, but within the one "side" of a faith? Your respective churches all make the same claim that you are the "true form or Christianity" and you all use the same reason.
It's odd to me.

[SGalisa]

Some reading for you SGalisa, seeing as though you were referencing revalations before, believe, not believe, up to you, but it IS interesting:
http://www.chick.com/information/rel...sevenhills.asp

@ Gatefan1976,
I've already read probably nearly all of Jack Chick's publications, except for his larger books, which go into greater details and documentations, etc.
Yes, his tracts are definitely interesting.. especially the one about the Catholic nuns getting pregnant by the Catholic priests (sin in high places!), and ending up having an abortion to hide the fact that there was any illicit "affair" going on between them.

"Alberto" was one of Jack Chick's most controversial exposure of the Catholic Church. Ouch!
Whether Alberto was genuine or not, doesn't really matter at this point. What matters is what the actual scriptures of the Bible states--

(New International Version, see Revelation 18:3-5 (in Context))
[ Warning to Escape Babylon's Judgment ]
Rev. 18:4) Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "'Come out of her, my people,' so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;..."

Mild translation-- that means LEAVE that corrupted system.

Most of my family is Catholic and still go to the Catholic Church. I merely left because my hubby couldn't get into the Stand/sit/kneel, make sign of the cross... etc., rituals; and that aspect never bothered me about leaving, because I used to get angry watching fellow Catholics act like a pile of hypocrites sitting in the pews every mass service and act so pious during the mass, but once they reach the other side of those Church doors to the outside world, they went right back to their merry cursing, hateful and rotten attitudes.

Sadly, my own father was one of those blankity/blank cursing hypocrites. I had to forgive him for years of beating me, when there was no reason to do so. (example, during my college years, he pulled my hair and smacked me because I forgot to do something 2 minutes after he asked me to do it.. I realized years later, that I was NOT blessed with any short-term memory, but he never saw that as a potential handicap within me.. instead, he felt I was simply being disobedient to his commanding request..) *sigh*
I had to forgive him, because Jesus commanded it, lest I not be forgiven when I stand before God. His behavior was NOT caused by his religiousness. His behavior was defined by his personality. I had to learn to separate religion from personality---and do this with every person whom I've ever met and felt had (negative) "issues" dictating their actions.

Bullies.. school bullies and grown-up adult bullies.
Age doesn't define a bully---Attitude of the soul/heart defines them.
Religion doesn't define them, either.. just saying that for clarification..

Only a select few Catholics were/are good and honest, with a heart / soul seeking after Jesus and his Word(s).
btw, M-G is among those few I trust as a having a heart after God/God's Holy Spirit, in Jesus Christ's name.

*laughs hysterically*

That Jack Chick whackjob is so nutty not even most of his fellow Protestants would listen to him.....

Sorry M-G, it was the evangelical / protestant community that brought Jack Chick's tracts into our attention, in the first place. Mostly only the apostate parts (but still sitting in "Church" pews) of the Protestant Churches refute Jack Chick's extensive documentations of Catholic atrocities that have occurred over the centuries.

The majority of Catholics never even heard of Jack Chick, because the hierarchies in the Church didn't want the *TRUTH* to be revealed.. thus, it might drive many Catholics away from supporting the "Church" and all of its indulgences, etc.

If it wasn't for a Catholic relative of mine, who started out to become a priest and left as a brother, because he declared he "liked" other men.. left the Church, saddled up with some buddies, got AIDS, and went off the deep end so far downhill that his own sister was appalled at what she actually saw in his gay/community house, I might not have believed *half* of what Jack Chick wrote. However, I couldn't deny what my own relatives saw/did, etc. He died young--less than TEN years later. There were plenty of other real life stories that supported Jack Chick's accusations against what is going on within the Catholic Church without public knowledge. The Catholic Church I grew up in, had pastor I thought was a really nice guy, ousted him for pedophilia--several families with their sons accused him, and he got chastised from the higher ups, and removed from that location. I don't remember if he was just moved elsewhere or completely removed from his pastorate. I do remember it hit our local newspaper for several weeks---as HOT news in the area.

What about the author of the book in question?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Hu...ian_apologist)

According to the above link, it's not just catholics he is not fond of....Your respective churches all make the same claim that you are the "true form or Christianity" and you all use the same reason.
It's odd to me.

Dave Hunt is a very well respected author in many Christian circles. My hubby and I have read several of his books. He's just not very popular with the religious persons / systems that he has exposed. But his voice is just one more reinforcement to the hundreds of other voices, who have spoken out against the Catholic Church and other religious systems.

TRUE Christianity is what only "GOD" can see, if people cannot see the other wolves in proverbial sheep's clothing. If a person's soul/heart is corrupted, they will do what they can to deceive others and "play" the game of "Christianity". Those people KNOW exactly who they are.. unless they are on drugs, substance abuse, and/or simply delusional from not being able to (eternally) think clearly for themself.

However, regardless of background or current creed in belief or whatever, IF a person's heart is pure and truly seeking out Jesus, then that person is sealed and forever safe (eternally "saved") in the name of Jesus Christ--

Spoiler:

see 2 Corinthians 1:21-22, New King James Version (NKJV)

21) Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God,
22) who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

[Gatefan1976]

@ Gatefan1976,
I've already read probably nearly all of Jack Chick's publications, except for his larger books, which go into greater details and documentations, etc.
Yes, his tracts are definitely interesting.. especially the one about the Catholic nuns getting pregnant by the Catholic priests (sin in high places!), and ending up having an abortion to hide the fact that there was any illicit "affair" going on between them.

My question in this instance would be, WHY is it illicit?
I mean, if attraction to the opposite sex is natural (and nature is dictated by "god"), why try to deny nature?

"Alberto" was one of Jack Chick's most controversial exposure of the Catholic Church. Ouch!
Whether Alberto was genuine or not, doesn't really matter at this point. What matters is what the actual scriptures of the Bible states--

(New International Version, see Revelation 18:3-5 (in Context))
[ Warning to Escape Babylon's Judgment ]
Rev. 18:4) Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "'Come out of her, my people,' so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;..."

Mild translation-- that means LEAVE that corrupted system.

I wouldn't see it as "leave the system", but more "leave that part"
Dispite what MG may or may not think, I have a respect for his faith, and yours. I AM however highly critical of all organizations behind any faith.

Sadly, my own father was one of those blankity/blank cursing hypocrites. I had to forgive him for years of beating me, when there was no reason to do so. (example, during my college years, he pulled my hair and smacked me because I forgot to do something 2 minutes after he asked me to do it..

Perhaps he had a "reason", it just was not a "good" one?

I realized years later, that I was NOT blessed with any short-term memory, but he never saw that as a potential handicap within me.. instead, he felt I was simply being disobedient to his commanding request..) *sigh*

Ummmm
I think you should extent that concept.

I had to forgive him, because Jesus commanded it, lest I not be forgiven when I stand before God.

Do you think your god is really that......Petty?

His behavior was NOT caused by his religiousness. His behavior was defined by his personality. I had to learn to separate religion from personality---and do this with every person whom I've ever met and felt had (negative) "issues" dictating their actions.

I think you may want to examine that more considering how much an impact a belief system can have on a person.

Bullies.. school bullies and grown-up adult bullies.
Age doesn't define a bully---Attitude of the soul/heart defines them.
Religion doesn't define them, either.. just saying that for clarification..

Religion may not define them, but is can be used to justify them.
TBC

[aretood2]

According to the above link, it's not just catholics he is not fond of. The disparity of belief in Christianity (as a whole entity) used to suprise me a great deal. I can easily understand tension between Satanists (which break down into thier own groups as well) and Christians as they are "natural" enemies, but within the one "side" of a faith? Your respective churches all make the same claim that you are the "true form or Christianity" and you all use the same reason.
It's odd to me.

That's because you think of Christianity as a mother religion that has a singular code that binds the constituent "subreligions" together making them responsible for each other's actions. While many of them do have historical relevance to each other, that is where the relationship stops.

Take for example Jesus Christ.

Mormons believe he is a separate "god" as well as the Holy Spirit and God (Jehovah).
Jehovah's Witnesses believe he is the first creation and the arch angel Micheal.
Catholics and various protestants believe that he is a coequal part of a trinity of the Godhead
Various Pentecostals believe that Jehovah is one, however he manifests himself as Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ.
Christeldelphians believe that Jesus was just a man, like Abraham, and had sin and thus required salvation.
Dozens of other non-trinitarians have differing beliefs about Jesus Christ's nature.
Various other churches believe that Jesus Christ is divided into two persons, one divine and one not divine.
Some churches, some already named, don't believe that Jesus existed before his birth on Earth while many believe that he did.

Look at that disparity concerning the object and source of Christianity and tell me if it is just to group all of them together and claim that all of Christianity is responsible for any one thing.

The differences are not necessarily caused by the Bible's alleged ambiguity, but rather a long history of traditional discourse. But still, they all fit under the umbrella term "Christianity" because there is a relationship between them, the Bible, and the name Jesus Christ. The point is that these beliefs in the end times are just as diverse. It would be wrong to assume that being a Christian automatically means believing in TV's version of the end times. This is something I see a lot of people do, which is why I made a post here awhile back about how the Bible, from my point of reference, doesn't support some of the things mentioned or done on this thread. It was an attempt at showing this very point.

[mad_gater]

My question in this instance would be, WHY is it illicit?
I mean, if attraction to the opposite sex is natural (and nature is dictated by "god"), why try to deny nature?

would only be illicit because of that whole out of wedlock thing and also violation of celibacy oath, and even then celibacy in the priesthood doesn't necessarily have to mean non-married life....a discipline of celibacy can involve marriage if the person in question is already married prior to his ordination (permanent deacons and Eastern Rite priests have this option, to be married as long as they were already married prior to ordination and promise not to remarry...though in rare cases a dispensation of the re-marriage thing can be given if the ordained priest/deacon's wife dies relatively young and leaves behind children who are still very young minors)

now if something like what Alisa described were to happen (highly unlikely it would be swept under the rug to the extent she seems to think it would) you can bet your arse I'd be just as upset, as would the vast majority of my traditional Catholic brethren at the sight of a priest who should know better trying to cover up his misdeeds rather than accept personal accountability for them

[mad_gater]

also it wouldn't exactly be a denial of nature to serve in a celibate priesthood either, not if you believe that God gave us hearts capable of selfless love....priests, at least in principle, are supposed to be blessed with a selfless love of ALL of God's children and thus that's why some Catholic Rites have the non-marriage discipline for its priests, as not being married frees up the priest to exercise this selfless love he has for the whole community and minister to the community full-time, to the point of even being on call 24/7/365 (or 366 if leap year) and married people don't often have that luxury as they have their own families they have to take care of

[Gatefan1976]

That's because you think of Christianity as a mother religion that has a singular code that binds the constituent "subreligions" together making them responsible for each other's actions. While many of them do have historical relevance to each other, that is where the relationship stops.

No, I don't.
I believe that they share a common book (the bible) to a limited degree.
I believe they share a common god to a limited degree.
After that, all bets on specifics are off, as you show below.

Take for example Jesus Christ.

Mormons believe he is a separate "god" as well as the Holy Spirit and God (Jehovah).
Jehovah's Witnesses believe he is the first creation and the arch angel Micheal.
Catholics and various protestants believe that he is a coequal part of a trinity of the Godhead
Various Pentecostals believe that Jehovah is one, however he manifests himself as Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ.
Christeldelphians believe that Jesus was just a man, like Abraham, and had sin and thus required salvation.
Dozens of other non-trinitarians have differing beliefs about Jesus Christ's nature.
Various other churches believe that Jesus Christ is divided into two persons, one divine and one not divine.
Some churches, some already named, don't believe that Jesus existed before his birth on Earth while many believe that he did.

Look at that disparity concerning the object and source of Christianity and tell me if it is just to group all of them together and claim that all of Christianity is responsible for any one thing.

The differences are not necessarily caused by the Bible's alleged ambiguity, but rather a long history of traditional discourse. But still, they all fit under the umbrella term "Christianity" because there is a relationship between them, the Bible, and the name Jesus Christ. The point is that these beliefs in the end times are just as diverse. It would be wrong to assume that being a Christian automatically means believing in TV's version of the end times. This is something I see a lot of people do, which is why I made a post here awhile back about how the Bible, from my point of reference, doesn't support some of the things mentioned or done on this thread. It was an attempt at showing this very point.

Not what I meant.
What I meant was all versions of Christianity believe that thier version is the "true version" and the rest are wrong to an extent, and they generally use very similar methods to prove it.

[Gatefan1976]

would only be illicit because of that whole out of wedlock thing and also violation of celibacy oath, and even then celibacy in the priesthood doesn't necessarily have to mean non-married life....a discipline of celibacy can involve marriage if the person in question is already married prior to his ordination (permanent deacons and Eastern Rite priests have this option, to be married as long as they were already married prior to ordination and promise not to remarry...though in rare cases a dispensation of the re-marriage thing can be given if the ordained priest/deacon's wife dies relatively young and leaves behind children who are still very young minors)

True, IIRC celibacy is a "directive" and not a "law" within the CC.

now if something like what Alisa described were to happen (highly unlikely it would be swept under the rug to the extent she seems to think it would) you can bet your arse I'd be just as upset, as would the vast majority of my traditional Catholic brethren at the sight of a priest who should know better trying to cover up his misdeeds rather than accept personal accountability for them

Ho do you feel when you see things like this then:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/calls-to-w...109-293ep.html
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nati...112-298h3.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226514893187