Thread: "End Of Days" - Preachers Suggest War May Be a Signal The Rapture Is Upon Us!

Throughout the history of Christianity, there have been countless crackpots, charlatans and even yes, those at the highest level of the preaching bureaucracy in large denominations who have projected The Apocalypse was right around the corner. This has been going on for several thousand years or so. A scientific study of such prognostications indicate a failure rate of 100%. This bodes poorly for those predicting grand scale events.

They have always been wrong.

Yet a recent article from AP covers the current Christian hysteria over the hostilities in Europe*, at least from some U.S. religious fanatics. Probably not a lot different from other Christian evangelicals. Quoting from the article :

"Megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress, addressing his congregation at First Baptist Dallas, said many Christians are wondering, in the face of carnage in Ukraine, “Why does God permit evil like this to continue? …. Are we near Armageddon and the end of the world?”"

end quote

They also have what is called a "Rapture Index", which they use to estimate the probability of the Second Coming. Quoting from the article:

"Their “Rapture Index,” -- on which any reading above 160 means “Fasten your seatbelts” -- was raised this week to 187, close to its record high of 189 in 2016."

end quotes.

So one might wish to ponder a higher meaning for all the carnage. (Or not.)


"Russia-Ukraine war: Some pastors wonder about “end of days” "

* https://apnews.com/article/russia-uk...ce555f5bbb9cda

When the end doesn't happen, the evangelical ranting and raving will be quietly forgotten.
Yet they are right in one respect. The NT does work off the idea that if you are a non believer you will roast in hell.
It's what the gospels are all about and confirmed in Revelation.

As an antidote, I'll employ Herb Silverman who even got the better of a pastor at a Billy Graham rally.

https://thehumanist.com/magazine/mar...-bad-the-ugly/

Originally Posted by ox

As an antidote, I'll employ Herb Silverman who even got the better of a pastor at a Billy Graham rally.

https://thehumanist.com/magazine/mar...-bad-the-ugly/

A quote from this link reminds me of a past encounter :

"I have since enjoyed inviting Jehovah’s Witnesses into my house, frequently to their surprise. More often than not, they leave before I am finished talking to them."

Went through this after several knocks on the door, with these very nice people telling me it was wrong to teach evolution in the schools. My reply was that teaching the truth in schools cannot be wrong, as we want people to live with facts, not fantasy.

When they asked how evolution was determined as fact, I invited them in and proceeded to explain the age of the earth, the U-238 dating method, genetics, the biochemistry of life, etc. They packed up and left after a while, never to return. Suspicion is they felt they were wasting their time, and needed softer targets.

They are only as good as the people they try to convert. Weak minds are the most likely to fall for such rubbish, which is why science-based education should be mandated in all schools everywhere, public and private.

The only reason I would not give zero probability to the possibility of a major disaster is that Putin is crazy enough to start a nuclear war.

Originally Posted by mathman

The only reason I would not give zero probability to the possibility of a major disaster is that Putin is crazy enough to start a nuclear war.

This is very scary. The quotes I hear from him are not those of a crazy person though. Blood thirsty, yes, crazy, no. He doesn't want to be nuked more than anyone else.

The problem is, he knows what he can get away with, since he has already. This is only his biggest project yet, and perhaps his last. He is very unlikely to fool with NATO territory.

Originally Posted by Double Helix

A quote from this link reminds me of a past encounter :

"I have since enjoyed inviting Jehovah’s Witnesses into my house, frequently to their surprise. More often than not, they leave before I am finished talking to them."
When they asked how evolution was determined as fact, I invited them in and proceeded to explain the age of the earth, the U-238 dating method, genetics, the biochemistry of life, etc. They packed up and left after a while, never to return. Suspicion is they felt they were wasting their time, and needed softer targets.

I'm inclined not to talk to them about evolution because you are never going to change their minds and they are never going to understand it.

After I've pretended to listen with interest what they have to say, I respond with questions about dinosaurs:

Given that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together (41% of Americans do), did humans eat them for food?
In the case of Noah's Ark how did a breeding pair of each species of dinosaur find their own way there from as far away as China?
Once on the Ark how did Noah separate the T-Rex's from the Sauropods?
How did Noah cater for their specific diets?
Why did God allow them to become extinct?

If the fundamentalist argues that only eggs were taken aboard then enquire as to how far Noah had to travel to find them and how did he know their gender.

Originally Posted by ox

Given that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together (41% of Americans do), did humans eat them for food?
In the case of Noah's Ark how did a breeding pair of each species of dinosaur find their own way there from as far away as China?
Once on the Ark how did Noah separate the T-Rex's from the Sauropods?
How did Noah cater for their specific diets?
Why did God allow them to become extinct?

Some excellent questions to be sure.

One can only wonder how many are prepared with equivalent answers, other than with the overuse of "working in mysterious ways".

Originally Posted by Double Helix

Originally Posted by mathman

The only reason I would not give zero probability to the possibility of a major disaster is that Putin is crazy enough to start a nuclear war.

This is very scary. The quotes I hear from him are not those of a crazy person though. Blood thirsty, yes, crazy, no. He doesn't want to be nuked more than anyone else.

The problem is, he knows what he can get away with, since he has already. This is only his biggest project yet, and perhaps his last. He is very unlikely to fool with NATO territory.

I hope he is not crazy, but he can easily make a mistake and get into a war with NATO. See Maureen Dowd column - NY Times Mar 13.

Originally Posted by mathman

I hope he is not crazy, but he can easily make a mistake and get into a war with NATO. See Maureen Dowd column - NY Times Mar 13.

If that is the column on Hamlet, she is not alone in those concerned about where the red line is for Putin.

Have also read that he might use small, theater nuclear weapons on Ukraine in order to force capitulation. But even that seems too far. His conventional weapons seem to be doing the same thing anyway.

Others have noted that his own generals may not buy into a nuclear strike under such conditions. He does not have a button to push, and if the generals and the political hierarchy thinks he is going too far, it could spell the end for him. With all the backlash, Putin is doing enormous damage to Russia now, and into the future.

He is probably not invincible. At least we should all hope.

Originally Posted by Double Helix

One can only wonder how many are prepared with equivalent answers, other than with the overuse of "working in mysterious ways".

God not only works in mysterious ways but apparently there are things that only He knows.
Whew...that's why you are wasting your time debating with Christians of any tribe.
If you challenge an unlikely Bible story you might be told it's allegorical. Catholics love that one.

Consider some plain words in the NT where Jesus clearly stated his 2nd coming would be within the lifetime of some of his followers.
No matter, Christians will always find a way around and interpret the opposite.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...les-lifetimes/

Adventists even believed the event would happen as long ago as 1833. When it didn't it was quietly forgotten and the Bible reinterpreted.

https://adventistreview.org/2008-1527/2008-1527-6/

I'm going to make a prediction now.
It will never happen.
The basis for this prediction is that there never was a Jesus so how can he come again?
Jesus was Roman name, not Jewish.
No man ever had a ghost (or spirit) for a father.

And as for the prophecy in Isaiah that Jesus would appear, that was made 800 years earlier than his birth.
A bit like going back in time from the present to the Crusades.
Not only that, it mentions a guy called Emmanuel, and not Jesus.
But you can't argue that with a Catholic.

Originally Posted by ox

Consider some plain words in the NT where Jesus clearly stated his 2nd coming would be within the lifetime of some of his followers.

It certainly appears that Jesus was likely the first to be wrong about his 2nd coming. Apparently all those who predicted his return were not discouraged by the Son of God himself being in error. Apparently Daddy had different plans......

Originally Posted by ox

The basis for this prediction is that there never was a Jesus so how can he come again?

There is pretty solid historical evidence that Jesus was a real person, who actually wandered about telling stories of God and so forth. If so, he wasn't only wrong about his 2nd coming!

Some would say he was a cultist of the highest order, the kind who have amused and entertained people for centuries with their overly ludicrous claims.

Originally Posted by Double Helix

There is pretty solid historical evidence that Jesus was a real person, who actually wandered about telling stories of God and so forth.

What evidence is this?
Please give sources.

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by Double Helix

There is pretty solid historical evidence that Jesus was a real person, who actually wandered about telling stories of God and so forth.

What evidence is this?
Please give sources.

Jeez ox, always thought this was well established. There are so many ancient references which are non-Christian that he did in fact live, and was crucified by the Romans.

But I must confess that any given event or person could be of questionable accuracy. Can't be sure when going back that far. Many fairy tale stories are thought to be true by some, so it is certainly reasonable to question this issue.

Anyway, quick search gave several useful references (1,2). Seems pretty solid to me. Quoting from (1):

"The documents produced by Christian, Jewish and Roman writers form the most significant evidence."

end quote

Of course this does not mean that he was of virgin birth, or even the son of God, much less a deity. Just that he was a man, as real as you and me, but with much different ideas. Wiki offers an extensive evaluation (2), and notes:

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically."

end quote

Hard to argue with a lot of these facts. On a grand scale, history to unbiased scholars is pretty reliable, going back to about 1800 BC, where the reliability crashes. Millions of artifacts of clay tablets and papyrus, etc. throughout the Middle East and the Mediterranean countries provide this history by telling nearly the same story about many things. It is how we know so much about Alexander the Great (356 BC - 323 BC), and so many other things from ancient times.

Even ancient Egyptian history (in stone, etc.) corroborates much of what is accepted as fact, again after about 1800 BC. For more on this, see (3) - the history of writing.


"What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?"

1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died


"Jesus"

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus


"Writing"

3. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing

My understanding: Jesus is a Greek name. His Hebrew name was Joshua.

Originally Posted by mathman

My understanding: Jesus is a Greek name. His Hebrew name was Joshua.

That is correct. And just discovered it was a very common name during the time of Christ, so ox has an even stronger case for concern about accuracy. If there were a lot of men named Jesus, there could have been a number of them operational as "the one". Quoting from a Slate article*:

"Many people shared the name. Christ’s given name, commonly Romanized as Yeshua, was quite common in first-century Galilee. (Jesus comes from the transliteration of Yeshua into Greek and then English.) Archaeologists have unearthed the tombs of 71 Yeshuas from the period of Jesus’ death."

end quote

This lends itself to a new line of attack against the evangelicals, etc., by insisting that the real Jesus may not have even existed, and could well be a composite of various individuals with the same name.

For instance, Alexander the Great roamed widely, and would be more accurately portrayed due to his enormous impact wherever he went.

Jesus was a local yokel, all talk and no action, and almost certainly not famous before he went wherever. And copy cat acts have been around for a long time. No telling how accurate his historical portrayal is, only that "someone" with the name Jesus was claimed to have pulled off some amazing stunts, and that someone named Jesus paid a nasty price for these activities.

Stranger things have been known to happen.

Keep it up, ox!


"Was Jesus a common name at the beginning of the first century?"

* https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...was-alive.html

Whenever I pass a church which says "Come and meet Jesus here." I do feel like going inside and asking to meet him in person.
After all, like anyone else I need my folk hero.

I must admit there is a reference to Jesus in Josephus, but what evidence did he have? Had he ever met him in person? I don't think so. The reference was most likely inserted later by a person unknown.
Did the Gospel writers meet him? Certainly not John because that gospel was not written for 100 years. We don't know who the Gospels were and we have no original manuscripts.
It appears that for the last 2000 years Jesus is the dominant person that nearly everybody in the world has heard of but nobody has ever met.

It reminds me of a classic episode of the sitcom MASH where a gifted surgeon joins the unit and rumours start to fly.
"Had breakfast with him yesterday". When he leaves he is mourned by all who knew him but nobody had ever met him. That's because he never existed.

Like Thomas Paine points out in The Age of Reason the story of Jesus is all hearsay based on hearsay.
He also reasons that having never met Jesus it should be necessary to doubt his existence.

Originally Posted by ox

Like Thomas Paine points out in The Age of Reason the story of Jesus is all hearsay based on hearsay.
He also reasons that having never met Jesus it should be necessary to doubt his existence.

Guess this rules out both the first coming of Jesus, and by default any others.

I made a slight error in the previous post when I implied that Josephus wouldn't have met Jesus. He couldn't have because he wasn't yet born.
That also applies to Tacitus who Christians like to mention as having made a reference to Jesus.

Have you ever read Atheist Universe by David Mills?
This is a book which gives you plenty of ammunition to win any debate with a fundamentalist. It even gets a like from Dawkins.
Also recommended are The Portable Atheist by Christopher Hitchens, and God : The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Atheist-Uni...c=1&th=1&psc=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God:_T...led_Hypothesis

"the universe appears exactly as it should if there is no creator."

Originally Posted by ox

I made a slight error in the previous post when I implied that Josephus wouldn't have met Jesus. He couldn't have because he wasn't yet born.
That also applies to Tacitus who Christians like to mention as having made a reference to Jesus.

Have you ever read Atheist Universe by David Mills?
This is a book which gives you plenty of ammunition to win any debate with a fundamentalist. It even gets a like from Dawkins.
Also recommended are The Portable Atheist by Christopher Hitchens, and God : The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Atheist-Uni...c=1&th=1&psc=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God:_T...led_Hypothesis

"the universe appears exactly as it should if there is no creator."

Your minor error is nothing compared to the countless errors of the religious. They live in errors.

Will have a look at those references. You can never have enough ammo against these people.

We will have to rate you as the go-to guy for such debates - the atheist's atheist!

Originally Posted by Double Helix

We will have to rate you as the go-to guy for such debates - the atheist's atheist!

Christianity is an imagined religion after some Jews felt that god had deserted them. So they drew on whatever sources they could find.
If another deity was virgin born then Jesus had to be, if other saviours were crucified that would also be fine for Jesus, and so on.
I know you can't argue with a fundamentalist, but...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wo...cified_Saviors

As I dislike being called an atheist by a theist, I've also imagined my own god. A goddess even.
Her name is Zorka and when I'm gone she will provide me with my own heaven.

One to mull over.
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-q...but-we-cannot/

Is it a game? Why does god have his own form of jealousy?

Originally Posted by ox

Christianity is an imagined religion after some Jews felt that god had deserted them. So they drew on whatever sources they could find.
If another deity was virgin born then Jesus had to be, if other saviours were crucified that would also be fine for Jesus, and so on.
I know you can't argue with a fundamentalist, but...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wo...cified_Saviors

Graves sure must have created a stir with "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors". Don't know what to think about any of this now. Except that Jesus as a composite of others makes more sense.

Originally Posted by ox

As I dislike being called an atheist by a theist, I've also imagined my own god. A goddess even.
Her name is Zorka and when I'm gone she will provide me with my own heaven.

One to mull over.
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-q...but-we-cannot/

Is it a game? Why does god have his own form of jealousy?

And a jealous God is appropriate. After all, he created man in his own image, and jealousy is a fundamental behavior of humans. So it is a holy attribute to God, as are all human emotions and behaviors.

Zorka would be a prime example for making God jealous. He is probably trying to entice her away from you all the time. Just be sure you are not lead astray by such envious activities.

Stay the course!

Originally Posted by Double Helix

Zorka would be a prime example for making God jealous. He is probably trying to entice her away from you all the time. Just be sure you are not lead astray by such envious activities.

God is male and I am also. Could he be jealous of me choosing a female deity?
Nuns describe themselves as brides of Christ so a belief in god could have a sexual connection.
Is the subconscious mind of a male female or a female male? The Romans seemed to think so, and so did Jung.

I imagine Zorka to be like Ursula Andress when she steps out of the sea in Dr No.
She says "What can I do for you sad ox?"
Well, for a start I want a planet to rule over when I'm dead, golf courses to pass my time (where I'll stay the course) and a free subscription to Galactic TV.
That should make me happy for all eternity. No more crazy than what Christians expect of their god.

May your god go with you.

Originally Posted by ox

That should make me happy for all eternity. No more crazy than what Christians expect of their god.

While it is no more crazy as the Christian expectations, it is still crazy.

A reading from the Book of Zorka - Chapter 4 'End of Days'.

Quote:

When it comes to pass that Judgement Day is nigh, there will be a sound of trumpets, the skies will darken, the earth will tremble, acid rain will fall from above, the dead will rise from their graves.
The gates of Hell will open and unbelievers will be thrown into a blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

But Zorka is a loving god and believers will be rewarded by owning their own planet with a good climate and sparkling water, an unlimited supply of virgins, and whatever else they desire.

End quote.

Originally Posted by ox

A reading from the Book of Zorka - Chapter 4 'End of Days'.

Quote:

When it comes to pass that Judgement Day is nigh, there will be a sound of trumpets, the skies will darken, the earth will tremble, acid rain will fall from above, the dead will rise from their graves.
The gates of Hell will open and unbelievers will be thrown into a blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

But Zorka is a loving god and believers will be rewarded by owning their own planet with a good climate and sparkling water, an unlimited supply of virgins, and whatever else they desire.

End quote.

Sounds great, but does the Book of Zorka tell us when this is going to happen, or are estimates all over the place, like with the 2nd coming?

And a search for Zorka comes up empty. Is this how new religions get started? An unlimited supply of virgins is very enticing. Perhaps it will catch on.

And does this require a financial investment to get in the door?

Originally Posted by Double Helix

And a search for Zorka comes up empty. Is this how new religions get started? An unlimited supply of virgins is very enticing. Perhaps it will catch on.
And does this require a financial investment to get in the door?

I'll quote from Chapter 1 of the Book of Zorka - The Creation.

"In the beginning was space, and there was a lot of it.
But Zorka saw there was no form and allowed it to bend.
This curvature of space allowed for the creation of the forces of nature such as gravity.
Energy and matter then allowed life to form.
Zorka introduced a breeding pair of fully formed breeding humans (Kevin and Tracy) into a large orchard.
They were tempted by an English speaking snake to eat a forbidden fruit and all humans have been at loggerheads ever since."

To that I will add that if Gaia is the Earth goddess, then Zorka is the Universe goddess.
The one true religion is Zorkanism.

Originally Posted by ox

The one true religion is Zorkanism.

It appears that Zorkanism has some competition with Christianity, which has a much larger following. And this Shibboleth Group suggests serious problems are right around the corner.

Be careful here. If Zorkanism is a false religion, fire and brimstone may be next. If you smell sulfur, you better run!

All religions are inventions made by humans.

Originally Posted by Double Helix

It appears that Zorkanism has some competition with Christianity, which has a much larger following. And this Shibboleth Group suggests serious problems are right around the corner.

The one true religion is Zorkanism and ox is its prophet.
To identify Zorkans, ask a Christian to pronounce Zorka.
It's a soft Z, more like Sorka.

Be careful here. If Zorkanism is a false religion, fire and brimstone may be next. If you smell sulfur, you better run!

If sulfuric acid rains from the skies, you better repent!

Originally Posted by mathman

All religions are inventions made by humans.

Have to go with mathman on this one. There is no proof for religions as they are commonly defined.

The prophet ox, Zorka willing, must provide some solid evidence to support his claims.

Originally Posted by ox

If sulfuric acid rains from the skies, you better repent!

Acid rain is already about 70% sulfuric acid. Many of us are already repenting about this, but doing little or nothing to stop it since it comes from burning fuels, etc. Perhaps Zorka, with all her wisdom and concern for humanity, will provide a solution for all the world's problems. No one else has, deity or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Double Helix

There is no proof for religions as they are commonly defined.
The prophet ox, Zorka willing, must provide some solid evidence to support his claims.

This is heresy because it clearly states in Ch.1 Book of Zorka that the Universe was initiated by a noiseless explosion which signalled the beginning of space and time.

"Bored with nothing to do, Zorka set off a chain reaction which resulted in space, time, the forces of nature, and eventually life to bow down and worship Her."

If you have a better explanation for why the universe exists at all, then let's hear it.

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by Double Helix

There is no proof for religions as they are commonly defined.
The prophet ox, Zorka willing, must provide some solid evidence to support his claims.

This is heresy because it clearly states in Ch.1 Book of Zorka that the Universe was initiated by a noiseless explosion which signalled the beginning of space and time.

"Bored with nothing to do, Zorka set off a chain reaction which resulted in space, time, the forces of nature, and eventually life to bow down and worship Her."

If you have a better explanation for why the universe exists at all, then let's hear it.

Not the first time someone has accused me of heresy, and probably not the last.

Your claims cannot be disproven. They can only be ignored, accepted, rejected or granted dispensation.

We will choose the latter - for claims of an origin which sounds like the Big Bang. Since it is based on at least one accepted scientific observation, it beats out most other religions.

And it should be appreciated that Zorka is feminine, and derived from the Czech "Zora", which means "Dawn".

Since the BB certainly relates to the "dawn of the universe", dispensation is granted based on the claims of her only known disciple. These things have to start somewhere.......

Originally Posted by Double Helix

Not the first time someone has accused me of heresy, and probably not the last.

You know what could happen if you practice heterodoxy.

Your claims cannot be disproven. They can only be ignored, accepted, rejected or granted dispensation.

Accepted.

We will choose the latter - for claims of an origin which sounds like the Big Bang.

It wasn't big and it didn't go bang.

Since it is based on at least one accepted scientific observation, it beats out most other religions.

But not Zorkanism.

And it should be appreciated that Zorka is feminine, and derived from the Czech "Zora", which means "Dawn".
Since the BB certainly relates to the "dawn of the universe"

Told you so.

Question: How many gods are dead?
Answer: Just about all of them - from Baal to Osiris, from river gods to sky gods.
There was even a moon god called Sin which probably became extinct after Moses.
So the sun god of Abraham is just a sky god and must die one day.
All have merely inspired childish fantasies.

Which leaves the god of the Universe (or Multiverse) - Zorka.
With daily repeated doublings the number of followers will be greater than the number of atoms in the universe within a year.
That alone shows what a failure orthodox religions have been.