Death

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Well here's the answer. Jesus was suppose to come to them during the Roman persecution during Nero - Diocletianus, which the Revelations time allotment was, well Jesus didn't come did he. Then all the way the Medieval Catholic Europe, still no Jesus. It's safe to 'assume' humanity has a few more thousand years.

[Primus Pilus]

Well here's the answer. Jesus was suppose to come to them during the Roman persecution during Nero - Diocletianus, which the Revelations time allotment was, well Jesus didn't come did he. Then all the way the Medieval Catholic Europe, still no Jesus. It's safe to 'assume' humanity has a few more thousand years.

 

Seriously how does one jump to this conclusion. Reading the Revelation (and any work of prophecy that is quite open to arbitrary interpretation) is like a journey into the abstract. Aside from the Seven Kings business which doesn't even properly work itself out to mean Nero or Domitian, and the fuzzy math of the number of the beast matching up to the letters of Nero's name in Greek, there isn't anything that we could call specific. Sure there are generic inferences that could interpreted that way, but they can just as easily be interpreted to mean countless other things... as people have proven by applying the Revelation to other random events in human history.

 

Let's assume for a moment that the second coming does refer to Nero or Domitian and that Christ was supposed to return at some point near this point in history (circa late 1st century, early 2nd AD). Since this didn't happen (at least I assume it didn't) how is it intepreted that humanity could have a few more thousand years. The Revelation is quite vague, almost making Nostradamus seem specific, and from my limited ability to decipher prophetic code, wouldn't the possibility exist in the Christian mind that the 2nd coming could happen at any time? In theory, shouldn't Christians be ready at any moment for this event of eternal damnation or salvation?

[Ursus]

Does this whole argument starting from the first post serve a point? You either believe in this stuff or don't. As this thread demonstrates, those that don't believe aren't really interested.

[roman wargamer]

Ursus

 

Does this whole argument starting from the first post serve a point?

You either believe in this stuff or don't. As this thread demonstrates, those that don't believe aren't really interested.

 

reply

 

 

yes, it show how varied and conflicting the second coming of Christ doctrine was

 

but as i see it they interested that why they reply / comment.

 

and i believe there are more christian believer in a western part of the world than third world countries.

 

_________________________

 

FLavius Valerius Constantinus @ Apr 19 2006, 12:26 PM)

 

Well here's the answer. Jesus was suppose to come to them during the Roman persecution during Nero - Diocletianus, which the Revelations time allotment was, well Jesus didn't come did he. Then all the way the Medieval Catholic Europe, still no Jesus. It's safe to 'assume' humanity has a few more thousand years.

 

 

reply

 

i am researching the same question, but the time element in the Bible pointed to our time, now.

 

as when the apostle ask , when Jesus will return , He give a sign's of "'ends' of the end of the world."

 

that pointed to the The Great War , as one of the sign that the beginning of the ends is near.

[M. Porcius Cato]

and i believe there are more christian believer in a western part of the world than third world countries.

 

First, "Western" versus "Third World" is neither a clear nor an exhaustive distinction (e.g., there are Eastern, "first world" countries). Second, if the contrast you wish to draw is between technologically-advanced versus not-so-advanced, there is a clear metric to use: per capita GDP. When you regress Christianity against per capita GDP, I doubt you'll find a very good correlation (but I could be wrong). Have you checked for this? Also, have you checked for the opposite--free expressions of atheism versus per capita GDP? At least in the US and Europe, higher education is correlated with more income and less religion (of any kind).

[tflex]

At least in the US and Europe, higher education is correlated with more income and less religion (of any kind).

 

Where do you get your figures from? and how do you measure if someone is less or more religious? and whether they apply religion to their professional life or just keep it personal; You can't lump it altogether.

Edited April 25, 2006 by tflex

[Rameses the Great]

First, "Western" versus "Third World" is neither a clear nor an exhaustive distinction (e.g., there are Eastern, "first world" countries). Second, if the contrast you wish to draw is between technologically-advanced versus not-so-advanced, there is a clear metric to use: per capita GDP. When you regress Christianity against per capita GDP, I doubt you'll find a very good correlation (but I could be wrong). Have you checked for this? Also, have you checked for the opposite--free expressions of atheism versus per capita GDP? At least in the US and Europe, higher education is correlated with more income and less religion (of any kind).

 

Atheism are you kidding me? The last time I checked a majority atheist nation was the Czeck Republic, and the last time I checked before the Euro they were not doing so hot. You can't incorporate Christianity with poor and atheism with rich. China is an Atheist country and the are dirt poor.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

At least in the US and Europe, higher education is correlated with more income and less religion (of any kind).

 

Actually the school which I go to, a Jesuit High School, contradicts that statement.

 

Now the Jesuits are a huge group with lots of influence all over and they greatly associate themselves with higher education that which also involves a greater education in Catholicism.

Edited April 26, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Furius Venator]

Cato's not saying that all rich people are atheists.

 

He's not even saying that most rich people are atheists.

 

He's just saying that if you pick a random rich person there's a higher likelihood of him being atheist than were he poor.

 

I suspect though that, as he says, education is the true factor, it's just that wealth and education correlate too.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Furius Venator

[tflex]

...He's just saying that if you pick a random rich person there's a higher likelihood of him being atheist than were he poor.

 

First, this needs to be backed up by figures or credible studies, it seems more like a guess. Second, just because an atheist is more likely to be educated and rich, it doesn't mean a sensible religious person is less likely to be the same or even better. There's a fine line between being religious and being fundamentalist.

Edited April 26, 2006 by tflex

[Germanicus]

Perhaps "educated" is the wrong word, although Cato's contention is certainly held up by the people I know in my own experience. The below is from Wikepedia and relates only to scientists, but seems credible:-

 

Atheism is particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God". The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%

[Rameses the Great]

Atheism is particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God". The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%

 

Yes but scientists do not believe in God, because they lean more to science. Atheism gives you the right to believe whatever you want to. I'm not saying that scientists are all Atheist but these truly are the facts. Techincal design and things like this are ways of taking "God," charactersitics.

 

Religion and education are different things. Studies have shown that students that go to a Catholic school usually become more successful. Doctors, as you may know are mainly Christian or some other religion. Jewish people are among some of the most successful people in the United States.

 

Atheism does not spell out success, and religion does not spell out failure. Scientists may think 'in the abscense of God,' but remember there maindrive is science. We compare science and religion, just some things that science can't explain we turn to religion. Scientists on the other hand do not.

 

Feel free to correct, nut I promise this is all facts. I promise

[tflex]

Perhaps "educated" is the wrong word, although Cato's contention is certainly held up by the people I know in my own experience. The below is from Wikepedia and relates only to scientists, but seems credible:-

 

Atheism is particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God". The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%

 

 

As you already mentioned, Cato was talking about higher education in general, but you narrowed it down to scientists. I admit that it's more likely that an atheist will become a scientist, just like it's more likely that a Jewish person will become a businessman, lawyer or doctor; it still doesn't prove that atheists are more educated than religious people. Sensible religious people are just as open minded as atheists and some atheists can be just as close minded as some religious fundamentalists.

 

Check this out: http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/contrib/clari.txt

 

Most U.S. scientists do not believe in a god, but 40 percent do -- the same percentage as did in 1916, researchers reported on Wednesday.

The findings show that better and more widespread education has not destroyed the need to believe, Edward Larson, a historian at the University of Georgia and Larry Witham of Seattle's Discovery Institute, said.

In 1916, researcher James Leuba shocked the nation with his survey that found only 40 percent of scientists believed in a supreme being. He predicted such ungodliness would spread as education improved.

"To test that belief, we replicated Leuba's survey as exactly as

possible,'' Larson and Witham wrote in a commentary for the science journal

Nature.

"The result: about 40 percent of scientists still believe in a personal

God and an afterlife. In both surveys, roughly 45 percent disbelieved and 15

percent were doubters (agnostic).''

[Germanicus]

just like it's more likely that a Jewish person will become a businessman, lawyer or doctor

 

Is this really the case ? Seems like a racial stereotype.

 

I think that even if it is the case that more educated people become atheists, it's largely irrelevant. Formal education is not related to intelligence.

 

Religeous people misconstrue the arguement as denigrating them somehow, which it does not, and atheists misconstrue religeon as being some kind of mistake in logic, which it is not.

[tflex]

Is this really the case ? Seems like a racial stereotype.

 

Jewish is not a race, but a religion. I have many friends that are jewish and they are proud of their professions. Also, I'm not saying all jewish people are businessmen, doctors and lawyers, but alot of them are and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

I think that even if it is the case that more educated people become atheists, it's largely irrelevant. Formal education is not related to intelligence.

 

I agree that formal education is not related to intelligence, but Cato was saying "higher education is correlated with more income and less religion (of any kind).", which I think is inaccurate.

 

Religeous people misconstrue the arguement as denigrating them somehow, which it does not...

 

Not denigrating, just inaccurate.