It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do religious fanatics keep saying the end of the world is coming?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2003 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Very interesting topic. Why do religious fanatics say it is the end time? I dunno. What religions do they follow? Are they catching a ride on comets, drinking spiked Koolaide, hanging out in Waco? What religious fanatics?

Seems alot of folks think that whoever holds to biblical doctrine is fanatical, so I'll figure from the stanpoint of a Christian.

There are particular prophetic occurances that must happen before the removal of the Great Restrainer (some refer to that time as the rapture) and the subsequent beginning of the 7 year Tribulation. One of them is Israel becoming a nation once again, and doing it in a day. That occured. The generation that sees that will see the end. The clock has began, there is no changing.
The explosion of knowledge is another obvious sign that nobody can miss, as well as the falling away, the worsening of Christian persecution and the hardening of hearts in mankind that we will be as they were in the days of Noah. We are murdering unborn, calling abominations "alternative lifestyles", worshipping ourselves rather than the Almighty, these and more are signs of the times. Those whose spiritual eyes do not have scales over them realize what is going on.

I have to touch on this nuclear exchange thing, as I have a bit of hands-on with those weapons and have a little understanding of them. First, let me say that they are my favorite weapon. We've only used them a couple times, right after they were created, and have not had to use them again. Why, because the penalty for attacking us it too great. They have been true peace-keepers, coupled with leadership that is willing to use them if need be.

The use of nuclear weaponry does not mean the certainty of a nuclear winter. The limited exchange that I believe will occur, crippling America's ability to be a power to be dealt with, would not. Neither would lobbing several hundred artillery launched tactical nukes on a theater level. Everyone launching at everyone would certainly screw up the world, and the terror seen at the end of the seven years will be horrible, but remember, that is when Christ rides in and saves the day, so to speak. The same Creator who created the world can, and will, clean it up for His Son's thousand year reign.



posted on Nov, 14 2003 @ 11:55 AM
link   


The use of nuclear weaponry does not mean the certainty of a nuclear winter. The limited exchange that I believe will occur, crippling America's ability to be a power to be dealt with, would not. Neither would lobbing several hundred artillery launched tactical nukes on a theater level. Everyone launching at everyone would certainly screw up the world, and the terror seen at the end of the seven years will be horrible, but remember, that is when Christ rides in and saves the day, so to speak. The same Creator who created the world can, and will, clean it up for His Son's thousand year reign.


Well Thomas you are technically correct. The only problem I have ever seen with the "limited exchange scenario" is how do you keep it a "limitied exchange". Once the genie is out of the bottle, how do you keep it under control. My theory is that once any form of attack is detected any where, every body who has weapons will launch against any perceived or real enemy to get their licks in when they can. The whole world will glow a bright cherry red (for a few hours) unless it is stopped. Indeed if anyone were ever to launch against the US, they could expect a devestating counter stroke of both nuclear and conventional weapons. With this in mind, the first strike will be total commitment. Of course both you and me believe that we will not be around for the fun. We can watch the action from a safe distance.



posted on Nov, 14 2003 @ 05:01 PM
link   
In the 1970s a study was completed, the conclusion of that research was that by the year 2000. The United States, in a cartel with Australia and Canada could say to the world surrender or starve.

It is now 2003 and clearly, the United States by its actions, is resolving what matters exist in respect to its authority in respect to the world.

A nuclear attack against this country can result in starvation, to an extent; cannibalism will be the only way to recover (that should be a warning label).

As far as Christians being taken away, the hale bop crew had the same idea; as a result, I sincerely recommend you do not drink the orange juice.

Any thoughts?



posted on Nov, 14 2003 @ 05:16 PM
link   
The "Aw, Hell Bop Bunch" were not Christians, and they thought they could do it on their own. It is a bit different with Christians as it is up to God when things such as that occur. We do not pick the time. It is God's decision when the Great Restrainer (Holy Spirit) leaves the world and man's carnal heart is unrestrained. Since Christ said that He must leave but not to worry as One would come that would never leave us (the Holy Spirit), we will have to leave when He leaves. Any Christian should know that drinking the spiked punch will only cause you to face God before time, and I'm sure He'll say something to the effect of, "Who do you think is in control of this little bit, huh? Can't you read?"

Jadg, pardon me, but my way of thinking may be stuck in the Cold War mindset. Tactical nukes were a given, to be expected from both sides. The battlefield scenario included both artillery delivered nuclear rounds to "Backpack" nukes, and most certainly surface to air nuclear missiles, as well as surface to surface nuclear missiles. This was understood, but didn't mean global nuclear warfare. At least, not on the onset.

The times, they be a changin', no doubt. But still, our greatest nuclear threat is still from our former enemy, who I still believe is our closet enemy. Ranking right next to them is China, who has limited nuclear capability, about 20 ICBM's. Of course, they intend on having much more than that by 2006, as well as many more medium range delivery systems.

But remember, we are thinking as we would today, in a semi-stable environment. When millions of people vanish, possible including many members of the U.S. government, who knows what might run through the minds of many nuclear-capable countries?



posted on Nov, 14 2003 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by riffraffalunas
~~~+++~~~

S H E E Z E ! !... a view, multi-squeeze, a toke?? you'd be a cheap, final date there ...


If I knew the end was coming like a big nuclear war or an asteroid about to smack us I would make the most out of it and since it would be the end I would not want to miss the view becaue I had to go to the bathroom. Face it, if some big asteroid is about to enter the atmosphere and kill everything, you best is to watch it happen and not waste your final moments crying under your bed.



posted on Nov, 16 2003 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Christians hate life and look for happiness in death. According to them pleasure is a sin. Hell, I'd want the world to end to if I was a christian and believed that fun and pleasure was a sin. I guess in death they get away from the millions of rules. No more worrying about eating meat on a friday, no more worrying about speaking bad to your elders, no more worrying about having fun, no worries. I guess if I was a christian, I'd want the end of the world to happen as soon as possible.



posted on Nov, 16 2003 @ 12:00 PM
link   


But simply put; their life probably sucks, and they fantasize about end of the world scenarios that will put an end to their existence. Religion is mostly for weak minded people who need to feel that all the answers to life lie in a single book. No one should expect these people to be rational


exactly!




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join