The "Second Coming" gives those in power an excuse to wage war perpetually

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I see three reasons for thinking that the doctrine of the Second Coming has made no difference whatsoever.

Firstly, wars were being fought, with equal acceptance, long BEFORE there was an expectation of the return of Christ
You appeared to deny that obvious fact in the OP; "How long have people been claiming "the end is near"? For as long as we have been fighting wars". Sensationalist over-statement again. But no,wars were being fought for thousands of years before the claim was first made.

Secondly, the idea that "the end is near" has never been anything more than a minority view in any age. So the thought-process "we don't need to stand against war, because the apocalypse is coming soon" would not have been a general view.

Thirdly, believing in the Second Coming has not, in fact, prevented church people from working towards peace in the past.
In the Middle Ages, belief in the return of Christ was standard teaching (the last judgement pictured in church windows), but bishops also busied themselves in trying to reduce war by setting up local "Truce of God" arrangements. If there was anything in your theory, they would not have bothered.

Can you quote any exanples of people admitting to the "we don't need to stand against war, because the apocalypse is coming soon" thought-process?
I doubt if you will find much outside American fundamentalism of the internet age (and your original case needs to find it spread out over two thousand years).
If you don't find any at all, I will think you were just engaged in abstract speculation about what Christians MUST be thinking.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yes they were fought at a time when "God" was very active in world events, they were fought in his name according to the bible and others fought in the name of their gods. Since the world has become more globalised and more connected, "God" has conveniently stopped intervening like he did in the past, hence the need for a doctrine such as the Second Coming to keep people complacent about them being waged.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You have not quoted specific evidence of people being made complacent about war by the doctrine of the Second Coming.
I have suggested there is positive evidence of people believing in the Second Coming and yet NOT being complacent about war.

The problem is that you are making sweeping statements about history without, I suspect, knowing much detailed history.

a reply to: Develo

Lol.

Are you denying the possibility? 

You can't see that a Christians believing that a war will bring about the second coming will be a reason for the second coming to be used as a excuse for war. The logic makes no sense, I know and agree, but neither does the circular logic of the bible being the infallible word of god because the bible says it is.

But you are right. No Christian or any religious individual, group or instituation with the means at their disposal, would ever dream of helping to fulfill that prophesy. Nor Any Israeli, Jew, Zionist or Muslim for that matter. Nope, No one is eagerly waiting, wanting, wishing or trying to make it happen.

The concept of a Second Coming ought be a cause for peace. Actually, some groups regard it as reason to prepare for salvation and the Latter-day Saints are an obvious candidate.

If God so called upon the people to conduct warfare against an unjust enemy, then it would be in His name, not Christ. Likewise, Islam would not wage Jihad in the name of Muhammed, but rather Allah. Surely, using a prophet as a means for war would be considered blasphemy.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Postscript.
On further consideration, I think I've managed to pin down the root problem of this thread.
It is that you're not clear in your mind about the difference between two kinds of teaching.

1) The belief that Christ will return at some stage
2) The belief that Christ will return in the near future

The first one is the official teaching of the church, and always has been.
That one, strictly speaking, is the doctrine of the Second Coming, so when you start sounding off about the Second Coming, that's the one you should be talking about. I assumed you were.
I take it that the Christians you know believe in the second one so strongly that you never realised there was a difference.

The difficulty for this thread is that only the first can be identified with the view of the church for the last two thousand years, while only the second could be plausibly linked with complacency towards war (though I still wait for specific evidence).
This means that your theory about "complacency about war for the last two thousand years because of the Second Coming teaching" is a non-starter.

a reply to: DISRAELI

All Christians hope it will happen in their lifetime, "at some stage" could very well be "in the near future" for all we know. Wars are supposed to happen before he comes, war has been happening for all of recorded history, this is supposed to be a sign of his coming, so why wouldn't Christians hope and think it would happen in their lifetime?

It seems as though you didn't read the OP before commenting, now that you understand the premise (after having to explain it a second time) your argument has changed.

The fact is Christians have been believing he's coming for a while now, they see war and hope it is THE war that will bring him back.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
All Christians hope it will happen in their lifetime, "at some stage" could very well be "in the near future" for all we know. Wars are supposed to happen before he comes, war has been happening for all of recorded history, this is supposed to be a sign of his coming, so why wouldn't Christians hope and think it would happen in their lifetime?

"Why wouldn't they...?"
That question gives away the truth of what I have been saying all along.
Your theory is based one hundred percent on speculation about what Christians are and have been thinking.
You are arguing that they MUST be thinking this and they MUST be thinking that, but you have no genuine knowledge of what they DO think on the subject.
If you had any genuine knowledge, you would have been able to quote it a long time ago.

Instead you speculate, speculate, speculate, and then present the results of your speculations as if they were hard facts.
The thread was flawed from the beginning because you never had any evidence for the claims you were making.
You have been relying on your imagination alone to carry you through.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DISRAELI

All Christians hope it will happen in their lifetime, "at some stage" could very well be "in the near future" for all we know. Wars are supposed to happen before he comes, war has been happening for all of recorded history, this is supposed to be a sign of his coming, so why wouldn't Christians hope and think it would happen in their lifetime?

It seems as though you didn't read the OP before commenting, now that you understand the premise (after having to explain it a second time) your argument has changed.

The fact is Christians have been believing he's coming for a while now, they see war and hope it is THE war that will bring him back.

That's just silly. That runs with the premise that every Christian thinks that every single war out there is Armageddon. Any Christian who pays any attention at all knows that is false. Armageddon is a specific war that happens under specific conditions. Not just any war satisfies. In fact none to date have no matter how terrible.

As for thinking He is coming ... yeah, so? He might be, but we live our lives as thought He isn't. For my, the second coming could be as simple as me going out and getting in my car tomorrow morning and getting into a fatal traffic wreck. He will surely come then, and I had better be ready. So we do think He could come at any time, but not for the reasons you are thinking.

a reply to: DISRAELI

And where is the proof that Jesus will come back except for in the bible? The Second Coming of Jesus is pure speculation on every front, a hope based on the word of man and no hard facts of any kind.

If you don't like speculation then what are you doing on a conspiracy forum? Conspiracies aren't based on hard fact, they're based on speculation. That's what makes them a conspiracy and not fact.

Hypocrisy. You're ok with conspiracies until it involves what you believe. Or do you not believe in conspiracies?

a reply to: ketsuko

And those specific conditions are extremely vague. When will it happen? Don't know. Where will the war take place on Earth? Don't know. Who will the powers involved be? Don't know. How exactly will Jesus come back? Don't know. What happened during the 30 years of Jesus' life that aren't recorded in the bible? Don't know. The bible is full of vagueness, and for a reason.

There is nothing specific about when or how the Second Coming will take place. If that were the case there wouldn't be so many different ideas about it.

Saying anything about the Second Coming being "specific" is just silly. People have been believing it's been coming for a long time, every single one has ended up being wrong so far. Specific? Hardly.

If the conditions are so specific then why not list them? Answer the questions in the first paragraph precisely without any guess work with bible verses to back it up. I'm guessing you'll have a hard time of doing that.

www.washingtonsblog.com... -rile-them-up-to-justify-war-against-iran.html

"According to French President Chirac, Bush told him that the Iraq war was needed to bring on
the apocalypse"

3NL1GHT3N3D1 , what do you imagine is the reason the bible is full of vagueness?

Edit:Assuming you're not using circular reasoning or those questions in the first paragraph of your previous response weren't rhetorical...

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

The 41,000 denominations should give you an idea. Divide and conquer. They had to keep us guessing at what the truth is instead of telling it plainly.

What was Jesus' true genealogy? Both accounts differ. What happened during Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus? All three accounts differ. Works or faith? Paul says faith, James and Jesus say both. When did Jesus rise from death? One account says on the third day, another says after the third day. When was Jesus' crucifixion? One account says on Passover, another says the day before Passover. Was John Elijah? John says he wasn't, Jesus says he was. Do we hate our father and mother or do we honor them? Jesus says both. What happened during the 30 years before Jesus' ministry? The bible is totally silent on the matter.

All these things plus more lead to different interpretations and thus division. Like I said, the 41,000 different denominations are a testament to that fact.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It's doubtful whether there was a "first coming" to begin with. The second one ain't happening. More chance of finding a colony of Leprechauns.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Do you think you'll always feel this way?

I haven't been posting in our community here for very long, but feel a degree cognitive dissonance reading over your posts.On a certain level they make sense, but it's painful to watch.(Maybe I just need to get to know you better )

Idk, I hope you find the answers you're looking for, but I think you might like it better if you switch up your technique.Where you see division, many see unity.

Good luck

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

My questions were rhetorical, there are no definitive answers to them because the bible gives different answers to them depending on one's personal interpretation. This is the problem with the bible, it is used to get people to quarrel over personal interpretations, that's how it is with all religions. The teachings are vague in order to cause these differing opinions and thus division.

"A house divided cannot stand", Christianity is a house divided, it won't stand much longer because people have better access to it than ever before. This is why people are turning away from religion at a record pace these days, they're educated enough and have easier access to the bible to make their own conclusions instead of believing everything their pastor tells them.

Religion is a control mechanism created by those in power, Christianity and the bible are no different, that's why they've been preserved by those in power for thousands of years now, it is their own creation to keep people in line with the threat of hell.

I doubt my mind will change on this, it is clear to me now. I used to be Christian up until about 4 years ago when I finally woke up to the deception.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I didn't read your thread about fractals, and religion isn't without it's mysteries.

I think the scriptures of different religions are written in a way that is meant to encourage individuals to practice shifting their consciousness or use faith to carry them in the mean time.

Reading the scriptures and examining more literally is just the beginning.Unfortunately, many churches and clergy of different kinds have missed the mark and hurt many people in the process.I'm sorry you feel this way about Christianity, and I've gone through similar times, myself.

It's natural to question belief and push the limit's of our understanding.Without that how can someone really own their ideas or use them as tools to help themselves?

There's many religions and paths to explore, I don't know what other philosophies you have investigated.Personally, I didn't really understand my family's religion very well until I started looking at other systems.After a while, the similarities started to outweigh the differences, in the messages I came across.

T.S. Elliot put it beautifully "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."

There's alot more I could write, gives me some ideas for threads.I need to catch some beauty rest (it's a school night).Forgive me if I'm getting a little personal with all this, I'd just rather have it this way then risk burning bridges...

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

I've explored other faiths and have found parallels between all of them, Christianity is just what I'm most familiar with so I stick to it mostly. I'm not saying there isn't any truth in the bible, there most definitely is, it's just a matter of separating the truth from the lies (or as Jesus puts it, the weeds from the wheat).

I believe the bible is laced with esoteric truth written in symbolism and metaphor but those in power have promoted these metaphors as literal teachings. If you take a look at some of my threads you'll see a common theme throughout them, that is that those in power have muddied the waters and inserted lies alongside the truth in order to deceive the exoteric majority.