Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
I did not come to that conclusion based on that article. I’ve had that opinion for a long time. It was based on a lot of reading and study I did a long time ago. I simply tried to find something that would support my claim and the wikipedia was the first thing I found.
I meant that your interpretation was most popular (which you might've understood me to be saying but I'm not sure if I was clear). But yes, popularity doesn't necessarily mean anything other than it's popular.
Yep. Premillennialism (which includes this futurist view) is strongly espoused by evangelicals. Most evangelicals are baptists and baptists alone number well over 16 million in America.
Yeah, it's only a few hundred years old at the most.
All of the left behind books actually was part of what turned me off of that view. I'm a bit weary of Christians trying to scare people into converting. Where's the good news there? Where's god's grace? Why not spread the gospel instead of pushing this apocalypse on people?
Obviously that's an issue if you don't believe the bible has any value at all. The bible itself says that nonbelievers will reject such things. But that's not really the issue here (unless you want it to be?)
But surely you can see the difference in the gospels and in the book of revelation. Yes?
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
However, if I go back to my Green Dragon Egg illustration; The bible saying that non-believers will reject the “good news” of the bible, therefore the bible is true, is like me saying that non-believers will reject the Green Dragon Egg, therefore Green Dragon Egg does exist.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Haha, a slight difference maybe.
I still think the news is not that good really. Well, not on the whole at least.
I mean how would you react if someone comes to you and says "Hey, Good news, the grandfather you thought just didn't exist anymore gets tortured by 10 feet tall demons, but you might be able to avoid it...oh, also you have really not much power over your life there's this really powerful dude and he knows everything about you...sleep tight"
I would punch them in the face and scream at them "**** YOU, LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF GOOD, *******!!!"
I never said "therefore the bible is true." It's implicit that I consider it to be true of course. But nothing I can say will empirically demonstrate that the bible contains truth or knowledge about god. I've said this numerous times on this religion forum.
And the dragon egg thing only shows to be true what I've already claims. Which is that you can't prove or disprove such claims empirically. It doesn't say anything as to their internal validity.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
However, it is more reasonable to say that the Green Dragon Egg does not exist because there is no evidence in nature. Until the Green Dragon Egg is proved by observation this is the more reasonable stance. This analogy can be taken to the bible. It is more reasonable to believe that the bible is metaphoric until it is proved otherwise. However, most fundamentalists make a leap of faith and find reasoning to be less valuable then belief.
But even your reasoning that it is more reasonable to think the bible is a creation of man rather than a revelation of god rests on an assumption as well. And that is that the universe is naturalistic.
On the other hand if you presuppose that the universe is created by god then it makes absolute sense to have faith.
Of course you cannot prove or disprove either assumption via empiricism.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
No, sadly not. It has some decent points. But also bad ones.
Well, except if it was said 2000 years ago?
No, it wouldn't. It would just be as acceptable. Actually Merriam and Webster would win, because that is teh definition of good we accepted in the language (free will).
KMC Community Forums
May 21st, 2007 05:00 PM
