jefferiah

Yes but belief in the rapture itself and in the end times is not always radical.

I think he was just asking a question.

Nonetheless Christianity and most religions are quite conservative, but that does not necessarily mean a political conservatism. A moral conservatism I guess. There are also left leaning Christians who attempt to eradicate the definition of sin or certain sins and say that calling something a sin is judgemental, mean and close-minded. While those people, who are quick to point out another's sins and condemn them and feel themselves superior, may be judgemental, simply defining certain things as sin is not. Jesus was forgiving and merciful, but His standard of what was sinful was much stricter than the law of Moses, aside from the intense ritual obligations. When he helped the adulteress he was not promoting her swinging lifestyle, but being merciful. He told her to sin no more. And she was seriously repentant. And he pointed out that her accusers were also guilty of sin. This does not make sin a-ok. All of this is IMHO

There is no need to bring the "well at least they are not like radical Islam" argument into this thread. Kuzadd is raising a good point. I do not know if Kuzadd is an atheist or perhaps even a disgusted Christian, but nonetheless. If I were an atheist and I read an article about these people it would turn me off from the whole deal pretty quick. Kuzadd made an interesting point that despite the existence of radical Islam there does not seem to be any of this large mass marketing of junk. First off, I would like to say that perhaps there are certain mass marketed products which do not possess the phoniness others do. Sometimes a good thing does well on the market. But there is an overwhelming amount of this Christian marketing which is very corny and is not unlike the watching people with big hoop earrings and burning incense working on the psychic network. The reason I believe this is not found in Islam is perhaps because it is a very North American thing. Advertising, infomercials, etc. I remember that Scientology employed this hokum for a while with the Dianetics books. To some extent the same has been done with some eastern traditions as well. Tai Chi, Yoga, etc---for $29.95, and they are not taught by some mystic but by some marketing guru. As for this group, I still haven't watched the video. I get really lazy about actually seeing these videos people post on here. But I think I get the idea. Even in the belief in apocalypse and Rapture (which is not always necessarily something all prophecy people believe) there are many different camps. A dangerous thing for Christians (while maintaining the freedom to be active politically) is to get into some non-Christian ideology on top of their Christianity or incorporated with it. I don't know how to explain this. I remember reading somewhere about people urging Christians to keep their Christianity out of the ballot box. I don't think this is right because people vote their conscience and so will Christians. However I think many Christians are guilty of a political Christianity, whereby they add some specific political ideology to the Gospel and focus less on the faith and on God and more on world politics and agendas.

You agree with communism and the suppression of religion?

Well, reading them is one thing. Like the Da Vinci Code or Stigmata, if you understand that it is fiction. I have no interest in them as they seem pretty corny to me. And like some sort of fast-food mass produced sci-fantasy attempt at making Christianity into some pop culture thing. Christians and non-Christians alike are right to be critical of it. As for these groups I watch very little TV, except for old Seinfeld and Frasier episodes. I usually hear about this stuff on here. I don't claim ignorance on the fact that there is belief in the rapture among many Christians, but what you seem to be outlining is a brand of Rapturists (lets say) that I have not even heard of until a few years ago. And usually this information comes from an atheist. No FOX news here, sorry. Read Revelations and you will see that many of these radical Rapturists are interpreting very specific outcomes from a very very vague prophecy.

Iran is a variation of the word Aryan. Whoever the actual Aryans were they were certainly present in Persia and they invaded India, as well. And they were quite racist in India, fancying themselves of a much higher caste then the native Dravidians or other tribes. Whoever the actual Aryans were they probably were only distantly connected, as an Indo European people, to the Teutonic people Hitler romanticized. In a more ancient and Biblical view of relation, Indo Europeans would be classified as Japhethites, sons of Noah's son Japheth. Semites were sons of Noah's son Shem. Shemites. And so semitic people includes much more than Jewish people since there were generations and generations of Shemites before the birth of Jacob.

Yeah, I think among other Christian groups there is some concern over that. But the difference between some of these movements is their media influence. Classical Christian views--Protestant and Catholic--don't get the same attention "Power Religion" does. I don't know if that is the appropriate term, but I am reading a book called "Power Religion" right now. It is a book about the "fast-food, get rich quick" style of religion. Sort of like Dianetics and Scientology, I guess. Tele-marketed religion promising wealth, power, prestige, the secret to happiness---for $29.95. It is a brand of religion focused not only on promising superficial power (which is not the point of Christianity---Christianity promises suffering in this world), but it justifies itself by using non-Christian marketing and modern psychological methods to attract followers. I don't agree with this. It twists the faith to make it something which appeals to people who want a quick fix, rearranges the original religion to make it attractive to reckless human urges and then says "Look at least we can bring in followers." But those of more classical views (myself included) would disagree with this and say that it is bringing in masses of people to follow the wrong ideas. Where the New Testament says that the Christian battle is a spiritual one to be fought with unworldy weapons---truth, faith, etc. This other "movement" creates a Left Behind video game complete with warfare and violence, because this is what sells. People do not want a God who lets himself be crucified, they are still saying "Prove that you can do it, come down from the cross and fight back." And Left Behind does the wrong thing and tries to indulge that human desire, for a Hercules rather than Jesus, who healed one of the men who arrested him.

I have heard of the rapture. That's quite a common belief among many Christians, concerning certain interpretations of prophecy. However, I have never heard of people who think they know when such a thing is coming or in trying to bring it about, until I began reading of it in the last couple years. So among those who believe in the rapture I would say you have two camps. People who believe in it, coming at some unknown time (I.E. the words in the Bible which say "I will come as a thief in the night" and "Nobody knows the day or the hour.") and then you seem to have this cult-like camp that thinks they know when it is coming and how they can help bring it about and they are prepared to go or something. The word rapture is not in the Bible but certain passages in Revelations I believe refer to people who are kept seperate from suffering the end times, which they call Tribulation Period. So movies like Left Behind would be based on this idea of people who are left to face the Tribulation period. But from what I understand of Left Behind (have not seen it) it seems to be a very radical view. My understanding of what is written is that during this time anyone who wishes to be Christian will be persecuted, and they will be executed for their faith. They would be martyrs----not violent revolutionaries who are supposed to fight some sort of a guerilla battle against non-believers, but simply people who refuse to deny Christian faith and remain faithful. And like the apostles they will meet their end for "witnessing", proclaiming the faith, which will be banned. But it is not good to speculate too much. What I have written here is my general understanding of the mainstream view of the prophecy. The book of Revelation gives a warning at the end about adding anything to the words in the prophecy. And since most of it is written metaphorically, it is not easy to understand and any vivid interpretation could be considered "adding to the words".

Raise your left arm and look at yourself in the mirror. Pull a pendulum to the left and you create the momentum for it to swing right.

Sorry dude but fascism is extreme conservatism and a direction where many CPC members would like the party to go. Start at any point on the globe. You go far left, I go far right. What will eventually happen? (Note: We can use cars and planes and boats and even argos.)

I stand with Israel as well Mike. I don't stand with you with regards to your posts on the radio thread.

Sorry Mike, no deal. Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. "Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints...." Ephesians 6:10-18 I don't see grenades, mortars, or firearms mentioned in there.

When you build a house the right way it will stand longer.

If you are serious Mike, then I am sorry, no support here. I prefer free speech and if they ban it I will continue to speak it.

On Oct. 2, 1881, a small group of men met in the basement of St. Mary’s Church on Hillhouse Avenue in New Haven, Connecticut. Called together by their 29-year-old parish priest, Father Michael J. McGivney, these men formed a fraternal society that would one day become the world’s largest ("CATHOLIC") family fraternal service organization. www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/about/history/index.html I couldn't figure out how to underline it. I was going for "underlined, quotated, in parantheses"---a la Alice's Restaurant. Commercial ventures do have the right to set terms as to how their rented products can be used.

Discriminate. At this point you are taking it way too far, M Dancer. Look you know just as well as I do that the Catholics and other churches would consider gay marriage abomination. Now they can't turn gays out at the door, nor would they want to. You know that it is against the faith for them, and to force them to perform gay marriages or allow their facilities to be used for something like this would be quite offensive. It's even rude to ask. That's why I use the pork example with Jewish people. That would be a very very inconsiderate thing to do at a Synagogue, understanding what Jewish people believe, right? ' To expect people who believe gay marriage is a sin to perform it in their church or to endorse it in their halls is plain disrespectful.

They cannot discriminate about people entering the hall, but they can set rules as to what it can be used for. It is their hall and they make the rules. No gay weddings here. No gay pride rallys. I would not hold an NRA meeting at PETA headquarters. Would you? It is against the law to discriminate against a person using the hall, but the rules as to what it can be used for are determined by the owners. Right? This is why I can go to a synagogue, but I would have to respect there demand that no pork dinners be held in their hall.

deleted---same post as below

That law was created and it can be changed. This is what we are arguing. It will create more problems than good and restrict freedoms. We are saying----look ridiculous human rights cases is where we are headed because of these laws. If the Jews don't want me eating pork in the Synagogue I can handle that. Shouldn't gays also be expected to understand that a church building is an inappropriate place for a gay celebration day. They do understand it. That's why a group rented the hall belonging to Bill Whatcott's church and held a gay celebration day there. Do you think that was a coincidence, M Dancer?

I did not say a sign saying "No gays allowed." I said a sign that would say our Church hall or whatnot is not to be used for a gay rights meeting, or for a gay wedding. Your original argument against the K o C was that they rented the hall and then turned around. When I suggest that the couple was most likely not ignorant of the fact that it would be offensive to them, you say that I have no proof and I am not psychic. So I then say if these groups now have to put up a sign in order to make the rules of usage known will you support that. Gays can still be allowed. But if the Church wants to make their own rules of usage ---- i e no gay weddings. What is that to you?

No sorry, I see no reason to believe in your unsupported hearsay. And the beliefs of the KofC are irrelevant. They are not clergy or a religious order and were operating a commercial enterprise. A muslim tailor isn't allowed to shoo Jews away from his window...... Ahhhhh big difference, Sir. Big difference. Allow me to explain the problem with your analogy. The Knights of Columbus would not turn away homosexuals at the door. But a homosexual wedding is different, isn't it. Or a gay pride rally. The Church would not shoo away individuals who are gay at the door, but they would not allow them to have the pulpit to promote gay rights or they would not perform a gay marriage. Because that would be condoning it. I went to a Synagogue when I was 15. I was a pork eater. I was not turned away at the door. Now if I came in with a piece of pork.....

You will then defend the rights of Catholics and or other religious groups, if they decided to put in their terms and conditions (upon renting halls or using catholic property) that they are not to be used for Gay rights rallys, etc etc? Maybe even a sign on the door? Or you would commend someone's decision to rent property belonging to Orthodox Jews for a pork roast because they simply forgot the "no pork" sign?

O......K M Dancer. I rather think you agree with me that it was intentional. Knights of Columbus subscribes to Catholic beliefs. In this way it can be said that they are Catholic.

K of C is a Catholic organization. I rather think they knew and it was intentional. The same thing has been done by homosexual activist groups out west. They booked a Catholic hall for a pride dinner under false pretenses, then installed two police officers at the doors so the priest could do nothing. There were only a few dozen places they could have booked. Why not just go to the one we know is the most conservative. For a group who claims to be so afraid of and threatened by Christians it is strange behaviour. The minister out west who wrote a letter to a Red Deer editorial is another good example of human rights cases gone ridiculous. The man wrote complaining about homosexuality being taught in schools and for having to fund gay groups he doesnt support with his tax dollars. For simply writing his opinion on the matter the man was charged by a U of A professor who is not even homosexual. The minister did not incite people to attack homosexuals though he did say that the activist movements were malicious. In many cases they have been throughout history. There is no denying that. When psychologists classified homosexuality as a disease there were raids on their annual meetings. People say the same undesirable things about other groups and their intentions all the time. Harper for instance is a right wing Bible thumping hate monger, apparently. Some people claim George Bush is the antichrist. Thus far I don't think he is suing anyone. Would you suggest that we make Liberals and Conservatives protected groups and that way any argument from either side must be stifled because it is bigotry? Sometimes I think the Liberals would be game for that. But honestly though....apparently being homosexual is so special, so unique that we must punish people for speaking ill of them or believing it is immoral, rather than expect them to apply the old "sticks and stones" rule, or the "agree to disagree" rule. And this case of Bill Whatcott, the subject of this topic, is the most ridiculous I have heard yet. His statements were not inciting any violence against anyone. Many of them were questions not even statements. And a non-muslim Uni Professor in Quebec feels she needs to procure money from the website that allowed him to post this. I am sorry, M Dancer, but this is plain ridiculous. If you think it is reasonable to even consider cases like this, I can tell you this will cause a lot more harm than good. People with strong beliefs will speak (many of them harmless individuals) and society will punish them for it, while more dangerous people are free.