georgesbluegirl

Snaps for you, rebel Seriously...cool!

Ah yes, Left Behind, that lovely series that engendered MORE anti-Catholicism by making the Pope the Antichrist's henchman. Thanks for that, Tim and Jerry. Then again, Tim LaHaye does say that we "Papists" preach a false Gospel and wrong sense of spirituality. Thanks for being so open-minded. Thought I'd post my feelings about Revelations, but I found a good summary on the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) site. I'll post the link and the article below. Revelation Introduction The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader. Symbolic language, however, is one of the chief characteristics of apocalyptic literature, of which this book is an outstanding example. Such literature enjoyed wide popularity in both Jewish and Christian circles from ca. 200 B.C. to A.D. 200. This book contains an account of visions in symbolic and allegorical language borrowed extensively from the Old Testament, especially Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel. Whether or not these visions were real experiences of the author or simply literary conventions employed by him is an open question. This much, however, is certain: symbolic descriptions are not to be taken as literal descriptions, nor is the symbolism meant to be pictured realistically. One would find it difficult and repulsive to visualize a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes; yet Jesus Christ is described in precisely such words (Rev 5:6). The author used these images to suggest Christ's universal (seven) power (horns) and knowledge (eyes). A significant feature of apocalyptic writing is the use of symbolic colors, metals, garments (Rev 1:13-16; 3:18; 4:4; 6:1-8; 17:4; 19:8), and numbers (four signifies the world, six imperfection, seven totality or perfection, twelve Israel's tribes or the apostles, one thousand immensity). Finally the vindictive language in the book (Rev 6:9-10; 18:1-19:4) is also to be understood symbolically and not literally. The cries for vengeance on the lips of Christian martyrs that sound so harsh are in fact literary devices the author employed to evoke in the reader and hearer a feeling of horror for apostasy and rebellion that will be severely punished by God. The lurid descriptions of the punishment of Jezebel (Rev 2:22) and of the destruction of the great harlot, Babylon (Rev 16:9-19:2),are likewise literary devices. The metaphor of Babylon as harlot would be wrongly construed if interpreted literally. On the other hand, the stylized figure of the woman clothed with the sun (Rev 12:1-6), depicting the New Israel, may seem to be a negative stereotype. It is necessary to look beyond the literal meaning to see that these images mean to convey a sense of God's wrath at sin in the former case and trust in God's providential care over the church in the latter. The Book of Revelation cannot be adequately understood except against the historical background that occasioned its writing. Like Daniel and other apocalypses, it was composed as resistance literature to meet a crisis. The book itself suggests that the crisis was ruthless persecution of the early church by the Roman authorities; the harlot Babylon symbolizes pagan Rome, the city on seven hills (17, 9). The book is, then, an exhortation and admonition to Christians of the first century to stand firm in the faith and to avoid compromise with paganism, despite the threat of adversity and martyrdom; they are to await patiently the fulfillment of God's mighty promises. The triumph of God in the world of men and women remains a mystery, to be accepted in faith and longed for in hope. It is a triumph that unfolded in the history of Jesus of Nazareth and continues to unfold in the history of the individual Christian who follows the way of the cross, even, if necessary, to a martyr's death. Though the perspective is eschatological--ultimate salvation and victory are said to take place at the end of the present age when Christ will come in glory at the parousia--the book presents the decisive struggle of Christ and his followers against Satan and his cohorts as already over. Christ's overwhelming defeat of the kingdom of Satan ushered in the everlasting reign of God (Rev 11:15; 12:10). Even the forces of evil unwittingly carry out the divine plan (Rev 17:17), for God is the sovereign Lord of history. The Book of Revelation had its origin in a time of crisis, but it remains valid and meaningful for Christians of all time. In the face of apparently insuperable evil, either from within or from without, all Christians are called to trust in Jesus' promise, "Behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). Those who remain steadfast in their faith and confidence in the risen Lord need have no fear. Suffering, persecution, even death by martyrdom, though remaining impenetrable mysteries of evil, do not comprise an absurd dead end. No matter what adversity or sacrifice Christians may endure, they will in the end triumph over Satan and his forces because of their fidelity to Christ the victor. This is the enduring message of the book; it is a message of hope and consolation and challenge for all who dare to believe. The author of the book calls himself John (Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), who because of his Christian faith has been exiled to the rocky island of Patmos, a Roman penal colony. Although he never claims to be John the apostle, whose name is attached to the fourth gospel, he was so identified by several of the early church Fathers, including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus. This identification, however, was denied by other Fathers, including Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom. Indeed, vocabulary, grammar, and style make it doubtful that the book could have been put into its present form by the same person(s) responsible for the fourth gospel. Nevertheless, there are definite linguistic and theological affinities between the two books. The tone of the letters to the seven churches (Rev 1:4-3:22) is indicative of the great authority the author enjoyed over the Christian communities in Asia. It is possible, therefore, that he was a disciple of John the apostle, who is traditionally associated with that part of the world. The date of the book in its present form is probably near the end of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), a fierce persecutor of the Christians. Link here I've also heard it taught as hidden account of what would happen when God punished the Romans for persecuting the Christians.

Sure, sure, because it doesn't matter to me, I think he's in Heaven anyway. But I don't see such an anti-establisment figure (snaps for that) going anywhere NEAR conversion into the giant of Christianity. But I won't argue that...nobody knows for sure but Johnny and God. Peace!

They're referring to growth rate in THOUSANDS OF YEARS, not decades. Describing your own big family proves the point.

I'd have to say that story is apocryphal. John never converted (for those of you who believe that all non-Christians go to hell, it was probably wishful thinking). John's "mellowing" in his last years came from a newfound appreciation for family - he talked openly about his contentedness in the home. He remained ambiguous in his beliefs...not quite Hindu all the time is a better way to put it. But he was a good guy, a genius and a brilliant musician till the very end.

In the submission thread I started, many people argued with me that a wife's submission is right and holy because the Bible is the unerring Word of God and is ALWAYS flawless, so we must follow it's commands. KJV of the Bible says (diff translation in my Catholic one) - "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18) "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9) - means imposing death penalty explicitly by the way, not condemnation to eternal torment. Judah was going to burn to death Tamar in chapter 38 of Genesis for this reason. And so forth. So why don't you guys who follow the letter of the Bible as infallible follow these?

Progress? I thought God hated progress!

Definitely...I'm totally excited to one day hang out with George!

He is a Christian. I'm a Christian too, and I don't believe "under God" should be in the pledge. But I don't think it can ever be taken out at this point, and it doesn't matter much personally to me, since I don't say it anyway. But can't a Christian be friendly with atheists?

Heh. Sorry, was typing fast and not thinking. Meant Johnny Ramone, who is a hardcore conservative. Again, apologies to all you hardcore new-wavers out there.

Haha I had a health teacher a few years ago that showed Oprah for our class lessons about certain diseases, disorders and life circumstances. It was HILARIOUS. She took it very seriously. Out of curiousity...are you a Dead fan, Other One?

As far as the definition that I know goes (I was a student in an "ecumenical institute" program for a while) it means bringing together people of all denominations under one Christian banner. I have only heard used in a Catholic context (I'm Catholic).

Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they don't respect people of faith, unlike a "gay-basher" showing disrespect to homosexuals. I know, I have a lot of atheist friends.

Too young - I think that the issue of "correct gender" should not even be brought up with these kids until they are out of puberty, which is when a lot of "self-finding" happens. Why bother to change Halle's name and call her a boy? Let her be herself, allow her to do "boy" things like any other tomboy. Let her figure that out before you act upon the "transgender" aspect of her life. For the record, gender identity disorder (that's not the technical name) is a real psychological thing. It's not made up - many people have to deal with it, and they do in a variety of different ways.

Agreed, the public school system needs a lot of reform.

Then what, you leave it to parents totally? I mean, it's a good idea in theory, but not all kids are going to GET that talk, some parents might not have the correct information, and there is always the situation that one set of parents might just say "abstain!" and if the kid then goes on to have sex, he or she is left up the creek without a paddle. Myself, I think it should be part of a Health curriculum, not a seperate course.

I would hope we are not referring to the Beatles.

You can't not teach about sex, in high school at least. Whether it's taught or not, kids are going to do it. It's a fact of life. It's been going on since the beginning of humanity. It is important that health information about protection and diseases be available to kids who are going to need it in the future - otherwise, we take the risk of endangering more kids. To stop teaching "sex ed" altogether would probably result in a large population of sexually active teenagers who don't have the education to prevent diseases and pregnancy. This would mean more people's lives messed up by disease, and more abortions. I find that unacceptable.

I was actually referring to this board, sorry, I meant two different threads. I do know Jesus. I also know socialism. I think often people misinterpret socialism to be the way that it has been put into practice (unfortunately due to the greedy nature of people it has never been and I'm sure will never be successful as a form of government). Socialism is a great thing, if it would only work. It's exactly what Jesus was about.

For the record, someone at Planned Parenthood didn't have their head on straight when they decided to do this. Someone needs to act as a filter! Of course, you can't teach abstinence in school either. The trick is finding a balance between practicality and what is healthy and appropriate for all kids to learn.

Kia ora. Reiteration. Anyone have any idea? Curiousity is getting the better of me, I'd appreciate any thoughts. I don't want to bring it up if it's immediately going to be shot down for being controversial, because it's not meant to offend, it's merely a thought.

Apologies about my misinfo regarding Alice Cooper...I'm not a huge fan (although he did write some good to maybe great tunes). I HATE KISS though. Sorry. Anyway, yeah, Joey Ramone supports Bush too. What is that?? I still like the band because they are awesome but...oh well, I guess you can't always trust them for judgement. Dee Dee did once attempt a rap album...

YOU ARE AWESOME. George Harrison is my absolute hero...and I've already had THAT argument back in the Catholicism thread. Here's to a late great man!

Let's say someone runs for president in the sixties who publicly announces that all involvement in Vietnam will be ceased, troops brought home, if he (or she) is elected. Is Bob Dylan going to support that candidate? Publicly? OF COURSE! Aside from all the great music that came from the sixties, without the sixties there would be no feminist movement (even those who hate the movement can't deny the good things that it did in terms of equalization) and lest we forget...NO CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT! Prayer (public prayer, that is) SHOULDN'T be in schools. The opportunity should be there for students to use as they see fit, such as the "moment of silence for meditation or prayer" in the morning. But our country is not about forcing religion on people (at least, that's what I believed before Bush was prez... )

Haha I know...rock on, sister!