Rapture day.

[Kuraikiba]

I'd like to point out the entire point of this thread is to jeer at and laugh at Harold Camping, not Christianity. I'm a Christian, but I can tell this is a scammer, not a prophet.

 

"If someone predicts the apocalypse, and gives a year timeframe, walk away. If someone predicts the apocalypse, and says the know the exact day, laugh in their face and walk away. If someone predicts the apocalypse, and says they know the exact minute and second, laugh until you have internal bleeding."

 

In this thread, I follow that credo. This swill he is doling out has NOTHING to do with Christianity. It's just pure crap. He just wanted to scam stupid people, and he succeeded. Let's address that, not discuss religion, k?

[Lisnpuppy]

I don't disagree with you Granny....but I don't think for one second it hurts ANYONE to be more careful with their post. Just because I know that person X or Y didn't mean anything bad doesn't excuse taking a frivolous attitude towards how one may come across. Also...I don't think if someone..ANYONE thinks they may have a beef and does what they are supposed to and bring it to the attention of the mods that they should be a topic of discussion because people may have not liked or agreed with what was done. I do not think for a min that Ginny needed me to take up for her and its her fighting spirit that no doubt gets people on edge at times (sorry Ginny!)

 

And this is my PERSONAL opinion and it is not specifically directed at Vagrant, for whom I hold the utmost respect...(please read that a few more times, Mates for good measure.) If I were a mod I probably would try to be extra careful not only of what I said but also how. I am not saying that Vagrant does or does not...I am talking in general. When I offer opinions or debates I try very hard not to use absolutes because you will get caught on a technicality a great deal of the time. Ones personal opinion as a moderator is often erroneously linked with bigger things and frankly...people though they may be...if you are in charge of deciding if someone else is out of line you may want to make sure you are carefully inside the bounds of fair play yourself.

 

I think many of you know me well enough to know that I play fair. I would not come to someone's aid simply because they were my friend...or not give it if they were not. I have seen many people dig themselves a hole before and stayed out of it because...well they were wrong. I was not commenting on if it was wrong that Ginny did what she felt she needed to or that she should not have been upset...it was because there were several posts discussing her actions (most not directed TO her) and it was not fair.

 

I stand by my posts and my opinions and if its done again..to anyone..and I am around to see it I will go to bat for them again.

 

 

Now back to our good friend the Reverend. (All terms used loosely)

[HeyYou]

I don't disagree with you Granny....but I don't think for one second it hurts ANYONE to be more careful with their post. Just because I know that person X or Y didn't mean anything bad doesn't excuse taking a frivolous attitude towards how one may come across. Also...I don't think if someone..ANYONE thinks they may have a beef and does what they are supposed to and bring it to the attention of the mods that they should be a topic of discussion because people may have not liked or agreed with what was done. I do not think for a min that Ginny needed me to take up for her and its her fighting spirit that no doubt gets people on edge at times (sorry Ginny!)

 

And this is my PERSONAL opinion and it is not specifically directed at Vagrant, for whom I hold the utmost respect...(please read that a few more times, Mates for good measure.) If I were a mod I probably would try to be extra careful not only of what I said but also how. I am not saying that Vagrant does or does not...I am talking in general. When I offer opinions or debates I try very hard not to use absolutes because you will get caught on a technicality a great deal of the time. Ones personal opinion as a moderator is often erroneously linked with bigger things and frankly...people though they may be...if you are in charge of deciding if someone else is out of line you may want to make sure you are carefully inside the bounds of fair play yourself.

 

I think many of you know me well enough to know that I play fair. I would not come to someone's aid simply because they were my friend...or not give it if they were not. I have seen many people dig themselves a hole before and stayed out of it because...well they were wrong. I was not commenting on if it was wrong that Ginny did what she felt she needed to or that she should not have been upset...it was because there were several posts discussing her actions (most not directed TO her) and it was not fair.

 

I stand by my posts and my opinions and if its done again..to anyone..and I am around to see it I will go to bat for them again.

 

 

Now back to our good friend the Reverend. (All terms used loosely)

 

Gotta also keep in mind though, that we have a rather wide spread of ages, and education levels here, not to mention folks that english is a second language. So, even the most careful poster might slip up now and again.

 

:D Face it, there are a LOT of potential pitfalls in posting on an open forum of this nature. There are probably even MORE for READING posts.

 

I am not in a hurry for October, even though I would like to see what the Reverend is gonna do, when yet another of his 'deadlines' pass, and nothing happens....... I am also curious if he is even gonna stay around that long, or, if he is going to use this 'reprieve' as a chance to jet off to some tropical island, that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US. Not that he has done anything illegal.... just immoral.

[Lisnpuppy]

Didn't he say that there was some kind of spiritual judgement and since Jesus did that he didn't have to go around talking about it all outside his following now?

 

@HeyYou...I do realize it and all the more reason to be careful. :)

[ginnyfizz]

My comment was nothing more than an allusion to the fact that various groups of Christians have been promising the end of days as an event which is soon to occur since pretty much day 1 of the church, and long before the Bible was even compiled by the council at Nicaea. The fact that the book of Revelation and several letters mentioning the end of days were included in the Bible shows just how much on an impact these groups had in shaping the early church and the religion to follow. You presumably know this, and yet it surprises and offends you when someone makes reference to a rather integral part of most Christian Beliefs? It was this promise of being salvation from the horrible, labored, oppressed existence that early Christianity looked to these beliefs as a means of hope. Is it no surprise that once again people who see their religion as being oppressed would look to the same things with hope, that they may be saved for their devotion to their beliefs while all others are left to suffer on Earth? Yes, this jerkwad is milking people for donations and abusing their beliefs for furthering his own causes, but they would not be successful if there weren't so many who honestly believed in what he was saying. As fringe as this might all be... The WORLD took notice, and few Christian groups took much effort denouncing this guy and his beliefs publicly, quite the contrary, many of them even joined in trying to make money. If you're going to be angry and offended by anything, be angry about THAT.

 

Come again? Bible compiled by the Council of Nicaea? THAT is a myth. The Council discussed the Arian heresy and ordered the destruction of books relating to it, drew up the Nicene Creed, computed the date of Easter and drew up the first 20 canons.

 

You can't have it both ways Vagrant0. If something is so obviously part and parcel of core beliefs, then using the word "strange" in relationship to it is illogical - how can it be strange to you when you have just explained where it originally came from? All the more reason to take care what you say. It means that you are using strange as derogatory. You and people with your attitude are STILL trying to paint all Christians with the same brush, as if we all spend our days obsessing about the end of times. NOW you are suggesting that we are all complicit because we either joined in or said nothing.

 

What an astounding conclusion. Has it not occurred to you that had, for example, my spiritual leader, Pope Benedict, thundered forth and denounced the dodgy Rev, it would, firstly, have given the dodgy Rev even more publicity, and secondly, called down the ire of people like most of those posting in here for his interfering. I'll bet that if he had there would have been comments about "who does he think he is ?" and the like. Also, we do not wish to be associated with people like the dodgy Rev, and we just know he is doctrinally incorrect (God doesn't make appointments) as well as a scammer.

[AncientSpaceAeon]

My comment was nothing more than an allusion to the fact that various groups of Christians have been promising the end of days as an event which is soon to occur since pretty much day 1 of the church, and long before the Bible was even compiled by the council at Nicaea. The fact that the book of Revelation and several letters mentioning the end of days were included in the Bible shows just how much on an impact these groups had in shaping the early church and the religion to follow. You presumably know this, and yet it surprises and offends you when someone makes reference to a rather integral part of most Christian Beliefs? It was this promise of being salvation from the horrible, labored, oppressed existence that early Christianity looked to these beliefs as a means of hope. Is it no surprise that once again people who see their religion as being oppressed would look to the same things with hope, that they may be saved for their devotion to their beliefs while all others are left to suffer on Earth? Yes, this jerkwad is milking people for donations and abusing their beliefs for furthering his own causes, but they would not be successful if there weren't so many who honestly believed in what he was saying. As fringe as this might all be... The WORLD took notice, and few Christian groups took much effort denouncing this guy and his beliefs publicly, quite the contrary, many of them even joined in trying to make money. If you're going to be angry and offended by anything, be angry about THAT.

 

Come again? Bible compiled by the Council of Nicaea? THAT is a myth. The Council discussed the Arian heresy and ordered the destruction of books relating to it, drew up the Nicene Creed, computed the date of Easter and drew up the first 20 canons.

 

You can't have it both ways Vagrant0. If something is so obviously part and parcel of core beliefs, then using the word "strange" in relationship to it is illogical - how can it be strange to you when you have just explained where it originally came from? All the more reason to take care what you say. It means that you are using strange as derogatory. You and people with your attitude are STILL trying to paint all Christians with the same brush, as if we all spend our days obsessing about the end of times. NOW you are suggesting that we are all complicit because we either joined in or said nothing.

 

What an astounding conclusion. Has it not occurred to you that had, for example, my spiritual leader, Pope Benedict, thundered forth and denounced the dodgy Rev, it would, firstly, have given the dodgy Rev even more publicity, and secondly, called down the ire of people like most of those posting in here for his interfering. I'll bet that if he had there would have been comments about "who does he think he is ?" and the like. Also, we do not wish to be associated with people like the dodgy Rev, and we just know he is doctrinally incorrect (God doesn't make appointments) as well as a scammer.

Here we go again ... :rolleyes:

 

This debate won't even exist if only Vagrant0 never used the word "strange." Someone is (obviously) offended by it, please just apologize so this debate will be over. Sometimes an apology is all a person wants.

[Halororor]

Without getting on Ginny's case or anyone else's, I just think that unless someone is being blatently rude or so stupidly ignoring someone else's principles or beliefs, we need to take some things with a grain of salt. It is not so hard to simply ignore an unintended poor word choice. I have done it many times. There are lots of important and interesting ideas being exchanged here, and it would be wonderful if we could do it without getting too caught up in conversations about who was being rude to whom and why.

 

I tend to agree with this. It is very rarely that anybody makes a serious post with the intent to offend. Sure, we can strive to word what we say better, but anybody who takes offense really can strive to overlook it as well, as long as the intent behind the post is clear.

 

I don't know about you guys, but I'm much less likely to take offense to something someone said as I am to critically evaluate it, and see if I can't learn something from it. After all, the best way to understand an issue something is through exchanging opinions with other people to see it from another point of view. That's why an open mind is one of the best things you can bring to a discussion such as this. Be open to accepting other people's views, even if they directly contradict your own. At the most, you can learn something from it, because that's why people discuss/debate anything, to exchange ideas. It's no use getting hung up over trivial things when you're missing the discussion.

[Halororor]

All the more reason to take care what you say. It means that you are using strange as derogatory. You and people with your attitude are STILL trying to paint all Christians with the same brush, as if we all spend our days obsessing about the end of times. NOW you are suggesting that we are all complicit because we either joined in or said nothing.

 

Heh. Strange how you're playing the victim again, when faced with facts, because it's true. I didn't hear a lot of uproar from the christian community about this issue, which is in it's very nature the abuse of fundamental Christian beliefs in order to exploit people for money.

 

Strangely enough, and back on the subject of playing victim. A friend dragged me to church with her two weeks ago (she keeps nagging me to go and from time to time I endure it). I had to listen for probably half an hour how terrible athiests and nonbelievers are and that we are enemies of the church, christians and god. Sure, I shouldn't go to church if I'm not christian, but just seeing the anger with which he said this really was an eye opener. I didn't take offense, but I could easily have done so, because I'd never done anything to harm the Christian church or followers.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Halororor

[Halororor]

Has it not occurred to you that had, for example, my spiritual leader, Pope Benedict,

 

Okay, wait, I just reread your post and seemed to have missed this part the first time. I'm stepping out of the thread, because my views on the Pope and whatever comes out of his mouth (like views on contraception, etc) is pretty aggressive and will get me banned around these parts. So I'm leaving, rather than waiting around to say something I'm going to regret later.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Halororor

[ginnyfizz]

No one is playing the victim here, and Vagrant0 actually got his facts wrong about the council of Nicaea, so no I was not confronted with facts, I was given a pretty wide goal to shoot at. And what you say is just a case of quod erat demonstrandum. That had the church of whatever description stood up and said anything about the dodgy Rev, people like you, Halororor, would have been spitting fury at them daring to presume to speak out. You can't have it both ways.

 

All I have said, all along, is that care should be taken not to use derogatory terms and to stereotype. Like Lisnpuppy said, using absolutes is never a good idea. Saying or implying that all people of X group are a certain way just because of a misunderstanding has led to all kinds of horrendous persecution. The notorious "Blood libel" that certain groups have at times leveled at each other, for example. Thus using terms like "strange" is ill advised, whatever the intent in using them was, because you are thereby putting an entire group up for ridicule on account of the extremist few.

 

Anyway...back to our friend the Rev. Anyone heard what his last known movements were? Has he been seen toting suitcases and a Panama, down in Acapulco?