Catholic End Time Prophecy

[Free your mind]

My point of view on the Catholic Church is too obscene for me to mention, as for their
End Time Prophecy.

give me a break what next alien contact, the catholic church is as out dated as it is OUT OF TOUCH with "god" as well as its "ppl ".

 

[captain morgan]

Give me one, just one, example of a specifically stated, religiously derived prophecy that has ever come true. Not even god or Jesus could do it, according to biblical accounts. God told Adam that on the day he ate of the tree of knowledge he would die, but he didn't, god was wrong.

I think that you'll find that Adam was threatened with expulsion from Eden if he ate from the tree, as opposed to death.

... But i do get a kick out of the notion that you question the factual basis of religion and yet point to it in a factual matter in order to prove your point(s).

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I think that you'll find that Adam was threatened with expulsion from Eden if he ate from the tree, as opposed to death.

I think you'll find that you're wrong if you actually read the book.

Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

... But i do get a kick out of the notion that you question the factual basis of religion and yet point to it in a factual matter in order to prove your point(s).

That's nice, I'm glad you're amused, but maybe you should learn to think a little more deeply before writing specious remarks like that. What, for instance, are the implications of such glaring inconsistencies in the text?

 

[lone wolf]

My point of view on the Catholic Church is too obscene for me to mention, as for their
End Time Prophecy.

give me a break what next alien contact, the catholic church is as out dated as it is OUT OF TOUCH with "god" as well as its "ppl ".

Hmmm.... Your POV ... or the Church?.... Why do you mention it then? ;-)

 

[captain morgan]

I think you'll find that you're wrong if you actually read the book.

Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

... And in that book, there is no mention of being smitten on the spot, is there?.. Just the statement that they were expelled... For that matter, they did die, just not immediately struck down as you want to imagine.


This is what happens when there is overt selectivity in relying on statements that only support a narrow view.

That's nice, I'm glad you're amused, but maybe you should learn to think a little more deeply before writing specious remarks like that. What, for instance, are the implications of such glaring inconsistencies in the text?

I do find it immensely amusing. Many posters that are in rabid opposition to religion spend so much time and energy on the issue that it really makes me wonder if the aforementioned are more upset that they might actually believe in the religion that they deride so much, the only option is to work tirelessly to convince themselves why they shouldn't.

 

[Tonington]

You're presuming that it actually takes much time and effort. I find that highly amusing. :lol:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

This is what happens when there is overt selectivity in relying on statements that only support a narrow view.

A narrow view? Genesis 2:17 is pretty specific: it says you will die *on the day* you eat of this tree. You're just trying to pretend you weren't wrong in your initial criticism. You were.

As for the rest of your post, do you really think people argue against something because they're afraid it might be true? That's certainly one of the shallower and sillier ideas I've heard recently. I argue against religion because I think it's false, and often dangerous. As I posted elsewhere recently, paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens, its scriptures are myths and fables, it has always been an enemy of science and free inquiry, it has subsisted on lies and fear, and been the willing accomplice of ignorance, guilt, slavery, genocide, racism, sexism, and tyranny. There was a time when religion ruled. It was called the Dark Ages.

And as Tonington observed, arguing against religion doesn't really take much time or effort. There are so many holes in religion's claims that all you need is a little knowledge and some critical thinking skills, the rest is easy. What's hard is defending it rationally. Look, for instance, at the kind of elaborate and laborious analyses and circumlocutions the biblical literalists do to try to make the Bible appear internally consistent. You even tried a little bit of it yourself, trying to argue that Genesis 2:17 doesn't mean what it plainly says.

 

[Cliffy]

Certainly a statement worthy of John Hagee, the American tv evangelist who casts the Roman Church as the seat of the Antichrist of the Apocalypse.

I'm reminded of the the Rolling Stones song, Sympathy for the Devil.. "what's confusing you is the nature of my game". I'd say choose your allies carefully, because one side is full of deceit and false promises. ;-)

Well, you can take solace in the fact that the evangelists will be in the same place as the catholics - nowhere. Neither that war god of the desert or his alter ego, satan, exist and the belief in them lead to a wasted life. But, Hey! If it gives your life meaning - buy all means, waste away.

 

[captain morgan]

A narrow view? Genesis 2:17 is pretty specific: it says you will die *on the day* you eat of this tree. You're just trying to pretend you weren't wrong in your initial criticism. You were.

You'll die 'on the day', will ya?.. Is that how you interpret your initial quotation from the bible that stated that "you shall surely die".

So, which is it to be?

As for the rest of your post, do you really think people argue against something because they're afraid it might be true? That's certainly one of the shallower and sillier ideas I've heard recently. I argue against religion because I think it's false, and often dangerous.

I think that the people that arguing this point qualify - those that expend so much time and effort do so more to convince themselves than to prove any point at all.... You for example, employ your own contemporary interpretation of an age old document and pretend that this is the spirit and true intent of the document when it was actually written.

As to the baseless response that 'religion is dangerous', perhaps you can measure that danger relative to the damage, loss and abuses that have resulted from a-religious sources. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have amassed a death toll that easily eclipses all of the combined theological motivations over the ages.

In the end, I don't care one way or the other.

As I posted elsewhere recently, paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens, its scriptures are myths and fables, it has always been an enemy of science and free inquiry, it has subsisted on lies and fear, and been the willing accomplice of ignorance, guilt, slavery, genocide, racism, sexism, and tyranny. There was a time when religion ruled. It was called the Dark Ages.

Ever hear that science is the new religion?

Re: lies, far, guilt, genocide (particularly), et al., the entire process has been expedited and stream-lined to the best possible efficiencies directly due to science... I suppose that we now must be enlightened.

And as Tonington observed, arguing against religion doesn't really take much time or effort.

Then why do you waste even a single minute of your life dealing with this? The fact that you've posted multiple times in response to others' opposing views suggests that arguing against religion doesn't take much effort, but arguing effectively presumably does require much effort.

 

[MHz]

A narrow view? Genesis 2:17 is pretty specific: it says you will die *on the day* you eat of this tree. You're just trying to pretend you weren't wrong in your initial criticism. You were.

Prove Adam wasn't outside Eden by the end of that day. Scripture doesn't record any events between the eating and God
Kind of hard to give Eve pain in child-birthing if Adam died that very day. Adam was born immortal, his sin took that away, from that moment on he was headed for the grave.

Now just about any verse from Moses on that has 'that day' means just that.

Not one post that confirms or challenges all those proposals in the OP. Some definitely are going to mess up some people even more LOL

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You'll die 'on the day', will ya?.. Is that how you interpret your initial quotation from the bible that stated that "you shall surely die".

So, which is it to be?

Jeez, can you think at all? There's only one meaning there. Adam was told that if he eats from that tree he'll die the same day.

As to the baseless response that 'religion is dangerous', perhaps you can measure that danger relative to the damage, loss and abuses that have resulted from a-religious sources

Baseless, is it? Read about the Inquisition some time, or about the Vatican's role in WW2, or try to total up the body counts reported in the Old Testament. Comparison with the damage caused by a-religious or irreligious sources is irrelevant to whether religion has caused damage. There are lots of sources of damage, religion's only one of them. Straw man arguments don't cut it. We're safe from most of religion's dangers because we live in a society where religion has no secular authority. In places where religious and secular authority are vested in the same people and institutions, there are oppressive tyrannies.

In the end, I don't care one way or the other.

Sure you do. If you didn't care you wouldn't be trying to argue about it.

Ever hear that science is the new religion?

Yes, I've heard that. It's not true, it's just one of the non sequiturs religionists toss out so they can try to criticize science with the same arguments used to criticize religion. The claim can be made only by someone who hasn't a clue what science is or how it works.

 

[Spade]

In defence of Catholics, I have yet to meet one who believes end-time fantasies.

 

[MHz]

In defence of Catholics, I have yet to meet one who believes end-time fantasies.

"-The Reign of the Church Victorious. The faithful of the Church will live and reign with Christ forever. The devils and evil men will be damned forever without reprieve."
Devils are certainly headed for the lake being as they are angelic in nature. The men who remain dead of in hell after His return are only (it will seem much longer)there for the 1,000 years.

So which from the list in the 1st post is 'rejected'? Certainly not all of them.

 

[Spade]

I am told, it is not discussed in religion classes or mentioned in sermons. Personally, I don't think most Catholics give prophesies about end times much credence or even a second thought.

 

[MHz]

Other than being aware of how one should act the actual sequence isn't all that important. What you say could be entirely true for those that sit the pews, I'm quite sure the Vatican has some opinions about the end-time. If their outlook has followed the same path as the trinity they are less committed to a strict sequence and might just say 'it's a pretty complicated subject'. There isn't anything wrong with that approach.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Personally, I don't think most Catholics give prophesies about end times much credence or even a second thought.

Yes, that's my impression too. My wife was raised Catholic and I married into a large extended kinship group when we got together, all of them raised Catholic but me. The end times have never come up in any conversation I've had with any of them in the 30 years I've been associating with them, nor have I ever heard any Catholic priest talk about end times, in or out of church. They don't seem to set much store by scripture either, and certainly they don't take a literalist view of it the way a lot of Protestant fundamentalists do. It's to be understood mostly allegorically and metaphorically, the real core of Catholicism comes from the apostolic succession and traditions.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The Destruction of the World. The world will be destroyed at the command of Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ.

Sanctus, this prophesy is taken straight from Hindu mythology. According to Hindu mythology, God has appeared on earth nine times. When he appears for the tenth time, he will destroy the world.

In my opinion, Christians took the concept of Trinity, Second Coming and destruction of earth during end times straight from the Hindus.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Many televangelists and fundamentalists sects are voicing a cry that the end is near and they expect the return of Jesus Christ. In spite their dire warnings, the year 2000 has come and gone without mishap, so they will have to revise their predictions.

The religious right was convinced that 2000 will be the end of the world. The televangelists told their followers to stock up on foods to last them at least one year, for two years if possible.

It was a good money raiser for televangelists. After all, after 2000 the money won’t be any good any way, why not send it to televangelists and put it to good use?

Many companies (including Canadian companies) made good money selling dehydrated food etc. to Fundamentalists. I remember they interviewed a Canadian woman on CBC who (jointly) owned a company selling dehydrated foods.

She got a call from a woman in the Bible Belt. Several families had got together to form a survival group, and her family was in charge of ordering the food. She was placing her order for dehydrated soup.

She got to talking with the Canadian woman, and she could not believe that the Canadian woman wasn’t worried about year 2000. No doubt she got rich selling dehydrate food to that survival group.

 

[captain morgan]

Jeez, can you think at all? There's only one meaning there. Adam was told that if he eats from that tree he'll die the same day.

I asked the question only because you offered a quote directly from the bible that stated that Adam would "surely die" if he ate the apple. Unless you paraphrased and left out the part regarding immediate death, then the comment about dying that same day is your interpretation.

Baseless, is it? Read about the Inquisition some time, or about the Vatican's role in WW2, or try to total up the body counts reported in the Old Testament. Comparison with the damage caused by a-religious or irreligious sources is irrelevant to whether religion has caused damage. There are lots of sources of damage, religion's only one of them. Straw man arguments don't cut it. We're safe from most of religion's dangers because we live in a society where religion has no secular authority. In places where religious and secular authority are vested in the same people and institutions, there are oppressive tyrannies.

How many deaths/murders were perpetrated in the Old Testament? I can't tell you, but surely you must have an idea. That said, the death toll for Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot and Mao represent can be reasonably assessed... Care to compare?


(Re: Science being the new religion)

Yes, I've heard that. It's not true, it's just one of the non sequiturs religionists toss out so they can try to criticize science with the same arguments used to criticize religion. The claim can be made only by someone who hasn't a clue what science is or how it works.

You sound exactly like a rabid televangelist that is threatening non-conformity with eternal damnation, particularly the element that science is not to be held to the same level of critical analysis as religion.

I am entirely familiar with "what science is and how it works".... For those that are familiar, they promote the attitude that it is continuously evolving and developing. It sounds to me that you may buy into the notion that because 'science' says it's fact, it is and will never, ever change.

 

[MHz]

Many televangelists and fundamentalists sects are voicing a cry that the end is near and they expect the return of Jesus Christ. In spite their dire warnings, the year 2000 has come and gone without mishap, so they will have to revise their predictions.

The religious right was convinced that 2000 will be the end of the world. The televangelists told their followers to stock up on foods to last them at least one year, for two years if possible.

It was a good money raiser for televangelists. After all, after 2000 the money won’t be any good any way, why not send it to televangelists and put it to good use?

Many companies (including Canadian companies) made good money selling dehydrated food etc. to Fundamentalists. I remember they interviewed a Canadian woman on CBC who (jointly) owned a company selling dehydrated foods.

She got a call from a woman in the Bible Belt. Several families had got together to form a survival group, and her family was in charge of ordering the food. She was placing her order for dehydrated soup.

She got to talking with the Canadian woman, and she could not believe that the Canadian woman wasn’t worried about year 2000. No doubt she got rich selling dehydrate food to that survival group.

The y2k scam raked in a lot more bucks than any religious scare. Besides anybody with even a very brief introduction to Scripture knows that the starting date of the end is a day only God knows. Truly there is a sucker born every minute, on both sides of the religious spectrum.