Seismic activity as a sign of the last days

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dude you tell yourself whatever it is you need to comfort yourself.

Again all that Christ has stated is that this epoch which began with the first world war has seen a marked increase in the frequency of large earthquakes. Evidently he was correct. Imagine that, shock horror! time to get out the ol atheist Bible, the God delusion, offer up some incense to an effigy of Charles Darwin and invoke the help of Spok! 😵

And once more I am telling you you can't count on those words actually coming from JC since it was MATT who wrote down those words 50 odd years later. He could have said anything like 'there will be wars and the Ark will be found with traces of animals in it' and you would believe that also. There is no way to prove the words Matt said had anything to do with JC.

But even if so, like I also said, 2000 years is not 'soon' like JC is supposed to have also said. Soon to JC meant, maybe next month not 2000 years down the road.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And once more I am telling you you can't count on those words actually coming from JC since it was MATT who wrote down those words 50 odd years later. He could have said anything like 'there will be wars and the Ark will be found with traces of animals in it' and you would believe that also. There is no way to prove the words Matt said had anything to do wi ...[text shortened]... is supposed to have also said. Soon to JC meant, maybe next month not 2000 years down the road.

I think they demonstrate a consistency with the other recorded teachings attributed to Jesus, I have certainly no reason to doubt that they are not the words of the Christ.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think they demonstrate a consistency with the other recorded teachings attributed to Jesus, I have certainly no reason to doubt that they are not the words of the Christ.

Of course, you HAVE to believe that otherwise your whole religious edifice collapses.

To me it is just another scam, just like Islam, Jains, Hindu's and the rest.

Like I have said before, how many deaths will it take before gods know too many people have died, to paraphrase Mr. Zimmerman. I am thinking of the hundreds of millions who have already died at the hands of despots and not a squeak from any of these alleged gods.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Of course, you HAVE to believe that otherwise your whole religious edifice collapses.

To me it is just another scam, just like Islam, Jains, Hindu's and the rest.

Like I have said before, how many deaths will it take before gods know too many people have died, to paraphrase Mr. Zimmerman. I am thinking of the hundreds of millions who have already died at the hands of despots and not a squeak from any of these alleged gods.

Its what happens when people insist on moral independence from God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dude you tell yourself whatever it is you need to comfort yourself.

Again all that Christ has stated is that this epoch which began with the first world war has seen a marked increase in the frequency of large earthquakes. Evidently he was correct. Imagine that, shock horror! time to get out the ol atheist Bible, the God delusion, offer up some incense to an effigy of Charles Darwin and invoke the help of Spok! 😵

When we enter a downsweep of seismic activity (if mankind hasn't destroyed himself with kebabs and treble fried chips) will you provide some biblical reference where Jesus prophesied that as well? Perhaps the reduction of seismic activity will be a sign that the 'last days' were just a 'divine giggle' and mankind will plod along as before.

Theist twig. (A dubious rebuttal to atheist sapling).

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again all that Christ has stated is that this epoch which began with the first world war has seen a marked increase in the frequency of large earthquakes. Evidently he was correct.

No, it is not evident that he was correct. An anonymous website on the internet (that has been thoroughly debunked and proven to be displaying blatantly false data) says he was correct. The actual evidence says otherwise.

Between you and Freaky, I am not sure which is better at typing while holding you hands over your eyes. You both seem to have mastered the art.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What he does provide are details which would mark 'the beginning of the end of the system rather than the exact day or hour of its end. The two are hardly synonymous as you have attempted to construe, why, I cannot say.

Are you claiming that the data you provided in your OP, proves that "now is the beginning of the end of the system"? Is this official JW prophecy you are delivering? And when will the "system" end?

Thanks for your response.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Oh my dear Finnegan you were called upon to substantiate your claim and could not and no wonder because there is no other epoch in history which adequately and reasonably can be construed as a truly global conflict prior to the first world war, where 'Kingdom rose against Kingdom and nation against nation'. We have our time frame.

The requirement of a global conflict would hardly have been considered at the time of Jesus. You are imposing this requirement onto the biblical text, which says nothing at all to that effect.

This is not about the literal or allegorical or even possible truth of the words in the bible. It is about the truth of the meaning projected onto those words two thousand years later in a different language by people who have no obvious claim to definitive and exclusive wisdom.

It is not the bible we are asked to believe but some eccentric and atypical self proclaimed authorities.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Oh my dear Finnegan you were called upon to substantiate your claim and could not and no wonder because there is no other epoch in history which adequately and reasonably can be construed as a truly global conflict prior to the first world war, where 'Kingdom rose against Kingdom and nation against nation'. We have our time frame.

You firstly want me to accept that the quote from Jesus is accurate and not imagined by Matthew, or placed in a different context where the meaning is changed, and presumably the translation is accurate and not garbled.

Next you want me to accept that your complicated and frankly tortured interpretation is more convincing than my direct and literal interpretation of the phrase, which I think might mean what it says and not mean something that it does not say.

Even then, I have problems with your argument. When you say there is no other epoch which can be construed in the way you wish to construe it, despite the reality that many people in earlier times have interpreted it to refer to other times in the past, despite the reality that even more people have insisted that it is not possible to locate a specific time for the predicted end, and despite the fact that you are one in a two thousand year long series of prophets demanding to be heard, even if I were to accept that there has not been an earlier example in history that could possibly match the words of Jesus which to your mind were predictive, ...

...Please explain to my why it might not refer to a moment in the distant future - perhaps two thousand years in the future, about which we can know nothing at this time but which will, sure enough, fully and perfectly coincide with the biblical predications in all their glory.

Originally posted by finnegan
The requirement of a global conflict would hardly have been considered at the time of Jesus. You are imposing this requirement onto the biblical text, which says nothing at all to that effect.

This is not about the literal or allegorical or even possible truth of the words in the bible. It is about the truth of the meaning projected onto those words two ...[text shortened]... t the bible we are asked to believe but some eccentric and atypical self proclaimed authorities.

'Hardly considered'??? Dear sir, its there in writing ! imposing and exegesis on scripture where none is explicitly stated in the text??? I don't think so because there is NO OTHER way to interpret it. It logically or rationally cannot be interpreted as a local conflict and the only other rational and reasonable interpretation is that the author intended it to be understood as global, or we shall ask you once again for an alternative understanding.

It most certainly is the Bible you are being asked to give credence to.

Originally posted by finnegan
You firstly want me to accept that the quote from Jesus is accurate and not imagined by Matthew, or placed in a different context where the meaning is changed, and presumably the translation is accurate and not garbled.

Next you want me to accept that your complicated and frankly tortured interpretation is more convincing than my direct and literal in ...[text shortened]... ll, sure enough, fully and perfectly coincide with the biblical predications in all their glory.

If you have evidence that its not the words of Christ or that it is inconsistent with what is considered to be the words of Christ or that the translation its spurious, erroneous or an interpolation or anything else, then produce it now. If you have nothing then we are free to dismiss your objection as uncorroborated and unsubstantiated, a mere opinion masquerading as fact.

My explanation is very simple, easy to understand and furthermore is the ONLY logical and rational and reasonable explanation to date. You have not even provided one except some wild conjecture aimed at some faraway point in distant time, heck it may even be out with the realm of time for all we know and proffer it up like some golden cabbage at a spring vegetable show!

There has been no other global conflict which fits the description that Christ gave and you have failed to produce a single credible reference to the contrary and you have the audacity to challenge my perspective, firmly rooted in scripture, both rational and reasonable with derision??? excuse me while I put my mocking hat on!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If you have evidence that its not the words of Christ or that it is inconsistent with what is considered to be the words of Christ or that the translation its spurious, erroneous or an interpolation or anything else, then produce it now. If you have nothing then we are free to dismiss your objection as uncorroborated and unsubstantiated, a mere opin ...[text shortened]... cripture, both rational and reasonable with derision??? excuse me while I put my mocking hat on!

But isn't the bible itself 'uncorroborated' and 'unsubstantiated'? Isn't that the real problem?

*And thanks for putting your mocking hat on. Is it okay if we start the mocking now?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
But isn't the bible itself 'uncorroborated' and 'unsubstantiated'? Isn't that the real problem?

hardly, its corroborated with history, archaeology and where possible science.

Yes you can mock all you like but you will only be asking for it! 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hardly, its corroborated with history, archaeology and where possible science.

Yes you can mock all you like but you will only be asking for it! 😀

'One nation was being crushed by another and one city by another, because God was troubling them with every kind of distress.' (2 Chronicles 15:6).

Why is your God so bent on destruction and distress? Why is it all famines and earthquakes?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its what happens when people insist on moral independence from God.

That is a cop out. That is like you saying you know the mind of god. I say there is something seriously wrong with religions in general if literally 5 % of the entire human race can die in wars and no god comes down to say a word.

Just goes to show ME that there is no such god. I can't deny the existence of some god or other but I sure and hell can deny the idea of existence of the bible god or the god of Ab and all that. My thing is this: a god wants to make a religion. Ok. Fine. But why do it in a desert to an unknown tribe and they don't go out of their way to spread the news, they keep it to themselves.

Then Christianity starts up, now looking actively for converts and such but this god can't even get half the population under its wings and that after 2000 years.

All that tells me is this whole edifice of religion is man made, no god needed. Mankind is quite smart enough even 5000 years ago, even 50,000 years ago, to make up a religion all by his lonesome.

Religious people can't accept the concept that people are quite smart enough to invent religions, they think the concepts are so unique that mankind could not possibly have come up with this stuff un-aided.

I say they WERE smart enough to make religions all on their own.

You would agree all those OTHER religions out there are not god inspired. Only YOUR religion is inspired by a god. By 'your' I mean Christianity in general,

I think it safe to assume you would feel Scientology was 100% man made, right?

So you would also figure others are likewise manmade.

Here is the deal:

You can't ALL be right. BUT you sure as HELL can be all wrong and I think that is what is really going on with all these religions at each others throats.

I cannot accept the idea a god would EVER set up such a screwed up system where people kill each other over religion. You know good and well that goes on as we speak.

That is not the action of a god. That is 100% the action of men.