Socrtease
Verified User
Great retort. Proves most of what everyone in here thinks anyway.
Egypt is Obama's Iran
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
He said he thought I was saying, I didn't know what was coming, because "we" don't know what is coming. I found the statement odd, because I know a lot of Christians, and almost to a fault, they will all tell you we are in the End Times. I don't personally subscribe to the Christian religious philosophy, I am a Spiritualist, and I have a high regard for the scriptures of the Bible. I think you can "believe" in the Bible and not be a Christian.
Now, I don't know if what the Bible says is going to happen, will actually happen, but if the same text were being reviewed by Nostradamus, they'd be doing 24/7 Special Reports on it. Almost to a letter, the events laid out in the Bible, are happening in the world, and almost precisely as the Bible predicts.... it also predicts people will shun the signs and grow more hostile to 'believers'... so you are fulfilling prophecy in this very thread.
Socrtease
Verified User
Wow! Dicksie is right! This is the first time in the history of Christianity that Christians have said it was the end times. NEVER BEFORE HAS THAT BEEN SAID. What the fuck are we thinking doubting Dicks and his read on Biblical prophesy. So silly of all of us. I am going out right now to prepare my "The End is Near" sandwich board.
Socrtease
Verified User
Historical Premillennialism: This belief was held by a large percentage of Christians "during the first three centuries of the Christian era, and is found in the works of Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Methodius, Commodianus, and Lactanitus." (pssst. These guys were wrong.)
Dispensational Premillennialism: (a.k.a. Dispensationalism) Premillennialism, declared a heresy in ancient times, was reintroduced circa 1830. Most people credit John N. Darby with its resurrection. He was a minister of the Church of Ireland, a denomination in the Anglican communion, and the founder of the Plymouth Brethren. However, author Dave MacPherson claims that British pastor Edward Irving was the actual person responsible, and that a conspiracy was organized to give Darby the credit. 14 Premillenialism received general acceptance by most Fundamentalists and other Evangelical Christians after the publishing of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. As in Historic Premillennialism, the Tribulation is believed to precede the second coming of Christ, and the subsequent establishment of the millennial kingdom -- a thousand-year golden age on Earth. The Final Judgment follows the millennium. But, theologians are divided over the timing of the Rapture. Many Premillennialists search world events and signs in the heavens for some indication of the Tribulation, which they anticipate will arrive at any time.
(Most of these bozos lived thinking they would see the end in their lives. THEY WERE WRONG TOO.)
Dispensational Premillennialism: (a.k.a. Dispensationalism) Premillennialism, declared a heresy in ancient times, was reintroduced circa 1830. Most people credit John N. Darby with its resurrection. He was a minister of the Church of Ireland, a denomination in the Anglican communion, and the founder of the Plymouth Brethren. However, author Dave MacPherson claims that British pastor Edward Irving was the actual person responsible, and that a conspiracy was organized to give Darby the credit. 14 Premillenialism received general acceptance by most Fundamentalists and other Evangelical Christians after the publishing of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. As in Historic Premillennialism, the Tribulation is believed to precede the second coming of Christ, and the subsequent establishment of the millennial kingdom -- a thousand-year golden age on Earth. The Final Judgment follows the millennium. But, theologians are divided over the timing of the Rapture. Many Premillennialists search world events and signs in the heavens for some indication of the Tribulation, which they anticipate will arrive at any time.
(Most of these bozos lived thinking they would see the end in their lives. THEY WERE WRONG TOO.)
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Can you post a picture?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I didn't say that. The true End Times is a pretty big deal, if it were predicted in the Bible, it might take the span your your miserable lifetime to occur, don't you suppose? It may even span a few hundred or thousand years, I am not arguing that. Just that, the specifics of what is currently happening in the Middle East, is pretty much laid out in detail, in a 2000-year-old document. Those who DO believe the Bible, already know what is going to happen in Egypt. To come here and say... "we don't know what's going to happen" ....is a laughable and ridiculous admission of ignorance, to those who believe the Scripture.
....I'm just sayin'!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Appeal to ridicule?
We love you really.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. What are we going to do with you?
In msg 30 you wrote,
WRONG!
Why do you think people join cults? They don't want to be free. They want someone to tell them what to do. Just like YOU, Dixie.
Yes, just like you. Let's look at what you wrote.
So, if you believe in the Bible then you do not believe in freedom because the Bible instructs us to worship a God. Not only worship but offer sacrifices. Throw the occasional B-B-Q.
Now, there's nothing wrong with that if it floats your boat but by the same token it shows you are not a free man. You are obliged to worship some "thing". You have rules to live by and you are not permitted to question them because the rule-maker refuses to show himself/herself/itself.
Now, people may say one has the option of not going to church or not worshiping God but many people dread being ex-communicated from the church so it's not really a viable option.
For example, consider how many Catholics live together because the church will not marry them after divorce. They choose to live the life they do not want because they want to remain with the church.
Now, follow that reasoning to Islam. Yes, the people want to be free BUT they also want to be part of their "church" or religion. I'm sure a father does not want to kill his daughter because she did a little hanky-panky but that's the law or the rule. The difference between someone living together and being denied marriage or someone having to kill their daughter is the difference between their religion. They both make a choice.
So, when people vote in a religious leader supporting Sharia law that is what they want. The minority may not like it but, then again, the minority here doesn't like a lot of the laws. Even the people who vote for Sharia law may not like it when they are subjected to the laws, just like the couple the church refuses to marry, but the people still choose that way of life.
If we go on the reasonable assumption most Muslims know what Sharia law is then once they vote for it they are stuck with it. They can not vote for Sharia law one year and not the next and then vote again for Sharia law and then vote against it, and so on. A democratic vote, for them, will be a one shot deal.
In other words if a democratic vote instills a religious leader who believes in Sharia law and the rest of the Muslin dogma that will preclude any more democratic votes. Stated another way the people can hold a democratic vote to outlaw democratic voting.
If that is the case do we keep insisting on them having the right to vote? It appears that is your position because you say all men want to be free which means you are insisting on forcing a form of government on them which they do not want and you wouldn't want to impose your way of life on them, would you?
Well stated and thought out....but dogma is a hard thing to break, and if anything, folk of Dixie's mindset are dogmatic in their beliefs and assertions.
If I were confident the people of Egypt knew and understood how democracy works, and what it entails, I would feel much better about this. Because groups like the MB can be marginalized in the arena of open thoughts and ideas, in a truly democratic society. However, in Egypt, that will not happen in the power vacuum left by Mubarak's departure. This well-organized, well-established radical fundamentalist group, has waited 60 years for this opportunity, and they will not let it pass. America appears to be weak at best, in dealing with this situation. The Obama Administration has sent a myriad of mixed messages through Hilary, and others, and there still seems to be absolutely ZERO leadership from our side. It's as if we are standing on the sidelines, waiting and watching for calamity to happen, knowing it's going to, but paralyzed to do anything about it.
What would Reagan or Bush have done? No way to know for sure, but how about getting the UN and NATO involved? Isn't this just the sort of thing the UN was originally designed to deal with? Reagan would have had James Baker holding talks with the leaders of Egypt's neighboring countries, six months ago... trying to find a solution to the potential crisis... but now, we have a full-blown crisis, and every opportunity to stave it off, is water under the bridge. As is so very often the case with pinhead liberals in charge... let things go to shit, then bat those Nancy Pelosi eyes, and say... whell, there wasn't really anything WE could do!
The UN and NATO, really!!!!!!! ahahahahahaha, a conservative wants the US involved? ahahahahahahaha, I am dying here!
Oh, and how many times have they seen the "signs"?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Britain, France and Israel invaded Egypt in 1956 to take the Suez Canal back, Eisenhower intervened and killed it dead.
Eisenhower, kept completely in the dark, felt utterly betrayed by his erstwhile allies. “I've just never seen great powers make such a complete mess and botch of things,” he told his aides. He determined to put a stop to the whole enterprise.
America struck at Britain's fragile economy. It refused to allow the IMF to give emergency loans to Britain unless it called off the invasion. Faced by imminent financial collapse, as the British Treasury saw it, on November 7th Eden surrendered to American demands and stopped the operation, with his troops stranded half way down the canal. The French were furious, but obliged to agree; their troops were under British command.
http://www.economist.com/node/7218678?story_id=7218678
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
a very interesting read... thanks
cancel2 2022
Canceled
It's an episode in history that's not well known in the US and should be, in my opinion.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Don't worry, we've still got public broadcasting to keep this information alive, and some pretty good periodicals. It's just a matter of people getting off their butts and looking things up.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Just one more reason I like Ike!