Hi RE Virus:

1. If Camping was correct, then New Zealand should have experienced earthquakes which registered close to ten on the Richter Scale. Nevertheless, this type of seismic activity was not evident in the country of New Zealand.

2. The Protestant Church which I orginally attended, and plan to rejoin, does not condone John Hagee's, Pat Robertson's, or Jerry Falwell's viewpoints. Many women, for instance, are active in the daily operations of my Church, and hold individuals such as Hagee--who preaches that females who refuse to accept domestic roles as their primary function in life are sinners--in relatively low regard.

So your Church is not obsessed with the State of Israel and the Jewish People? That's good to hear.


I didn't realize that Camping and his prediction was well-known among Christian evangelicals. There's a whole Wikipedia article about the prediction itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_end_times_prediction



The introduction paragraph explains the timezone question:



It was around 8 pm in New Zealand when QP made his post, so his story is consistent.

And 200 million? Wow, the typical Christian Zionist number is only 144,000.

As for agony in Hell, unlike the Zionist/Jewish eschatological view, Camping's view was:



So it seems to me that Camping is a more honest and well-meaning prophet than Hagee and the others. Read about some of the other Christian predictions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfulfilled_religious_predictions

Most of them are crazier than Camping. And then there are the nutjobs who declare themselves the Messiah. The list is quite extensive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants



QP, watch this video regarding Protestant/Lutheran churches and how they ignore Luther's warnings about certain corrupting influences:

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

Hi RE Virus:

Let me address your second point first.

I watched the YouTube video, and its tautological purpose involved teaching individuals how NOT to behave. However, I think that you will find Jews, Christians, Muslims, and people of other religious persuasions who are good people. One needs to place less emphasis on persons who use their faith as an excuse to act in malevolent fashion. We know that the fruit of such individuals' actions can only prove socially destructive, and can NEVER ameliorate their society's ethical environment in any significant manner. Instead, we ought to study those of any religion who conduct themselves in a way which all members of society would deem virtuous. The exemplary conduct of such persons will certainly never create communal disintegration. In fact, they can only improve the scruples of their community. Hence, I believe that it is far more fruitful to examine the value systems of persons whom every member of society holds in high esteem than the morals of certain persons which are considered righteous by some religious groups, but are construed as appalling by others.

I hope you don't mind, but I wrote a personal response as to how I feel about Harold Camping now that I had considerable time to allow my temper to cool. However, this response is rather lengthy, so I will include in another post which immediately follows this one.

Hi RE Virus:

I will share my feelings with you regarding Harold Camping's failure to predict the end of the world on May 21, 2011.

"Humiliation Humbles," by QuotidianPerfection

I feel neither elated nor disappointed over believing Harold Camping’s errant eschatological predictions. At a cursory glance, his mathematical analyses seemed harmonious with every Scriptural passage. Yet, in retrospect, I remember a YouTuber finding fault with Camping’s tendency to literalize metaphors so that he could derive numerical values from them which would satisfy his end-time computations. This, as I am now discovering, displays an egregious error on Camping’s part. For example, when a person reads the cliché stating that an individual “can’t put two and two together,” one must not conclude that this person’s main shortcoming is enrooted in an inability to add two positive integers of the same value together, and arrive at the sum of four. That person must take a more introspective look at the figurative expression, and try to identify what type of individual the symbolic language describes. Metaphorically, it typifies one who lacks the ability to gather information and come to a rational conclusion. Ironically, the aforementioned figure of speech accurately describes Harold Camping! It proves farcical, too, that, while Camping’s hermeneutical system privileges the spiritual comprehension of a passage over the literal comprehension of it, Camping’s calculations are geared towards teasing dates and facts from Biblical verses whose teleological aim is contingent upon using plain language to express moral truths to Family Radio listeners. From all that I can gather, Camping was ensnared by a trap which he taught others to avoid: placing one’s holistic faith in rote Biblical wording. While I did learn an important lesson from my mistake—specifically, never again to trust an end-time prophesier who formulates his scientific predictions from idioms—I would be hypocritical if I continued to blame Camping for his errata. The fact that I subscribed to the previous alluded teaching of his means that I share commensurate guilt in this matter. Anyone can develop bad habits, and sometimes nothing less than embarrassment can cause a person to correct them.

I agree, despite the lengthy and dense wording, it is one of the best things you've expressed here.

_________________

Some of my Architectural renders

The only thing Harold Camping was correctly counting was the money in his bank accounts.

I hope you realize that you have again demonstrated how little belief matters. Religion is not emotional.

AGAIN,

Look inside yourself for the answers. You will never find it from any church, scripture, or person. If you simply go back to your old church, then you will have learned absolutely nothing from this experience, and you will inevitably fall into the same trap again.

HAVE FUN!

Hi crispncrunchy:

Thank you for the compliment--I really appreciate it.

Hi Lord Elevation:

I read some New Testament passages again. In one of these passages, I discovered that Christ absolves ALL people who ask Him for forgiveness of their sins. He doesn't "pick and choose" who He will save and who He will allow to remain unsaved. Arminius made this discovery long before I did.

By the way, Harold Camping is trying to explain why his Doomsday prediction did not come to pass: http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9NDBUO81%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1011&page=2. I read the article, and think Camping has no idea how much devestation his Judgment Day proclamation has caused in the lives of some people who follow him. People have given away everything they have just to join his end-times movement. Camping is not apologetic at all, but should be, especially considering how he drained some of his adherents of all their money. Currently, Camping is attempting to wriggle out his May 21, 2011 Doomsday announcement by saying that his calculations were slightly off. Here is a link to the article: http://gawker.com/5804846/rapture-predictor-harold-camping-apocalypse-rescheduled-to-october-21. Rather than May 21, 2011 being the Rapture and the first Day of Judgment--and October 21, 2011 being the end of the world--the Apocalypse no starts on October 21, 2011, and will end at a date Camping has yet to disclose. If Armageddon does not transpire on October 21, 2011, he will probably use his destruction of the world date yet again as the first Day of Judgment, and pick another end times date. I hope everyone who reads my post can see the pattern I am describing. I also hope everyone understands the necessity of Camping formulating his prophesies in the manner: so he does not have to admit that he is wrong.

Not saying I know everything but the pattern of Camping's behaviour was always pretty clear to me prior to the failure of his prediction. I spent a bit of time researching him (because you were making so much noise about him) and it smelt like a scam to get people's money. He's is not a very spiritual person, in fact he seems argumentative on his talkback radio show.

Wanna see a spiritual person in action? Can't go past Dali Lama


Plus one more for you to reflect on QP, here he talks about determination to live life and he addresses people of any religion

_________________

Some of my Architectural renders

Hi crispncrunchy:

Thank you for sharing the Dalai Lama YouTube videos with me. I watched both of them, and was amazed at his wisdom. While I'm not a Buddhist, I think that the Dalai Lama is a very moral individual, and encourages individuals of all religions to act ethically. He is, in my opinion, a true role model. People would do well to emulate him.

One more thing: I gave considerable thought to how certain people of low moral character suddenly become terrified whenever they see a sign of Doomsday. When no harm befalls them, the previously alluded to individuals will soon return to their bad habits. However, these persons will immediately become frightened again the instant that they see sign of Armageddon--one which they witnessed in the past--returning. I wrote a poem about this subject, entitled "Electric Wrath." Please read it, and tell me what you think.

"Electric Wrath," by QuotidianPerfection

Vegas hookers and gamblers quake when a
Sky-anchored, electrical skeletal film submerges as a spine over the Vegas skyline,
Stabbing the earth like a rod--before
Crackling and splintering--and
Water bleeds from the hole-wound. These

Transgressors sound aghast as it grows fifty limbs--
Using wavy cartilage whips to lacerate the sin-stained soil--
Before colliding with and piling on the ground as a
Collection of broken twig and branched-sized limb bones just before evaporation,
Leaving behind many grilled-black strips.

Sinners all quiver as the wrathful skeleton
Breaks off the sky, shattering and splintering at impact.
When rhe lightning is seen no more, hookers bare their breasts
and gamblers roll dice, but it
Returns, and everyone takes cover again.

Do you think gamblers and addicts fear lightning, my experience is that their fear is dominated by their self obsession.

_________________

Some of my Architectural renders

Hi crispncrunchy:

I agree with you to a certain extent. Mild thunderstorms will not cause many gamblers and prostitutes to fear that they will be impugned for behaving sinfully. However, when some of them are suddenly threatened by a thunderstorm which threatens to obliterate them, these sinners will suddenly become afraid. Then, when the storm of such magnitude dissipates, a large percentage of these transgressors will return to their vices. Nevertheless, once the great thunderstorm returns, it will instill fear in some of them again.

Have you ever actually considered another religious perspective?

That means more than simply reading the literature and evaluating it from your extremely narrow perspective.

Hi Lord Elevation:

I have read books on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I have also read books on Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. However, whenever I read non-Christian literature, I did so with the intent of attempting to disprove the validity of other religions. So, to answer your question, it wasn't that I refused to read about different faiths. Rather, whenever I read beliefs that differed from mine, I immediately became defensive, and would jump on any doctrine which I deemed heretical. By failing to read non-Christian literature with an open mind, though, I wasn't receptive to any of their ideas. Thus, instead of bringing an "I'm a Christian, but you may be right about this issue" attitude to the material which I was reading, I brought an "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality to the texts that I examined. However, holding such convictions did not allow me to learn anything new about different belief systems. Hence, if I want to learn anything new about different religions in the future, then it would probably be wise to analyze their beliefs in an open-minded fashion from hereon in.

Damn you are a strange fellow QP.

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

Hi RE Virus:

Everyone has their oddities.

By the way, are you surprised that Harold Camping is setting another Doomsday date for October 21, 2011?

What I'm not explaining very well is that gamblers are behavioural addicts and statistically most street working prostitutes have a drug addiction. People who suffer addiction are not sinners as you would think. They are sick. Addicts say that they want to give up their addiction and they mean it, but they don't have control over their emotions and their fear of emotions drives them to fulfil their addiction. A self obsessed person is driven by fear an incredible lack of self esteem. It is difficult to explain this in a 200 word post.

When you start looking into an addict's back story you find that somewhere between infancy and the beginning of adolescence these people suffered abuse, trauma or neglect or all three. The most recent research into our brain chemistry, supported by extensive research is stating that if a person suffers any of the above 3 (especially during infancy) it actually hinders brain development. And that the addict has little control & choice over their behaviour. Being an addict (now in recovery) I found this to be incredibly relieving; I wasn't morally faulty (a sinner in your words) just sick. While an addict commits crimes to feed their addiction they usually don't want to commit the crime and feel great shame that their life has stooped so low. But because of their addiction (sickness) they are compelled by their brain chemistry to fulfil their addiction because it provides short-term relief from their mental anguish or pain.

The research I refer to is interesting in a number of ways: It is opposed to the accepted medical postulation that addiction and other socially unacceptable behaviours are genetically inherited. It explains quite clearly how an addict's mind doesn't work normally and a large part of being able to treat the disease is to replace old behaviours with a positive way of living and live spiritually. It ties in with what the Dali Lama was saying. I highly recommend reading "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts" by Gabor Mate if you what to learn more about this topic. You will find that it supports the importance of spirituality in the search for the happiness the Dali Lama referred to. (Oh and RE I started watching the first of the Zeitgeist docos you recommended but went to sleep half way thru the first, think I need to get back to them and find out what they say about Gabor Mate.)

As you expressed in response to LE you feel the need to assess what is going on in the world in a more open and rational way. There is nothing wrong with that and it will only help you on your path of spiritual discovery. Just remember that people of other faiths are expressing the same ideas just in a slightly different way. While you choose Christianity (hopefully because it suits you not because it is superior) if someone else chooses Buddhism they aren't ethically wrong. In fact I personally support the argument (well supported by research) that core ethics are the same for all humans regardless of race, creed or sex. And that religion was in part formulated to codify these "instinctive" ethics. This maybe a bit too radical for you to accept, but hey you understand tolerance.

You are in the process understanding your God. He/she/it is YOUR God. You have a direct relationship with your God. Not a relationship through someone else's ideas (ala Camping). It's like a healthy relationship.

To me Camping is sick, if anything I have pity for him particularly in that he is not prepared to admit that he might be wrong (Just a little miscalculation everybody ). But I have more pity for the poor people he has duped, that's where I think he is being unethical.

To my way of thinking corporations & governments are more unethical (sinners) than addicts. Especially when they are taking the high moral ground and deceiving you.

_________________

Some of my Architectural renders

Hi crispncrunchy:

Thank you for your kind words.

I think two factors cause me to view information in a closed-minded manner: my education and my ineptness in math and science. When I attended college to receive my B.A. and my M.A. in English, I learned a great deal from knowledgeable professors who specialized in teaching literature, history, and philosophy to their pupils. I am grateful for the vast amount of information that I learned from these distinguished persons. Nevertheless, I was also taught by my professors to argue with critics who have voiced their belief about a certain piece of literature in books, book articles, and scholarly journals. In essence, I was trained never to agree with the critics, but, rather, to argue with them. The idea behind this style of writing--called argumentative writing--is to make a point about a text different from what other critics have said. The logic behind the aforementioned statement can be discribed thusly: why would anyone want to read someone's ideas if his or her thoughts were just a Xerox of an earlier scholar? Wouldn't this just be a waste of time? As far as the subject of math and science is concerned, I know relatively little about these disciplines, and my ignorance of these matters show in my Merqury City posts. In other words, while I know quite a bit about philosophy, I am often oblivious to subjects that ask individuals to defend their statements with numerical measurements and other forms of concrete data. Currently, though, I am searching the internet and visiting the library for materials related to math and science. I am doing so in order to become better acquainted with these two subjects.

Once again, thank you for your encouraging post. Take care.

Hey it's not about argumentative thinking it's about critical thinking. Doesn't this make sense or not, if it does then you build it into your understanding. Everybody thinks Maths is close to Science. While this is true, Maths is closest to Philosophy. It is all about logic. All radical expression should be measured against logic.

_________________

Some of my Architectural renders

Hi crispncrunchy:

I agree with you that "radical" thinking should be viewed in light of "logic."

My problem basically was the following: understanding under what conditions it is necessary to keep an argumentative standpoint in mind when reading a text. In academic writing, the aforementioned procedure is de facto for being a successful scholar. In an scholastic setting, one's goal is to prove that one has more insight into a given piece of literature than other critics. Unfortunately, I continued to delineate in this manner whenever I read books which promoted belief systems different from that of Christianity. If the philosophies of some texts exhibited ethical dynamics that strayed from Christian norms, I immediately attempted to find a way to refute the moral codes showcased in the literature which I analyzed. It is only now that I understand that if I substituted a "this text illustrates that Religion X makes some valid points, ones which the Christian faith might of overlooked" mentality for an "I'm going to look to Christian literature to disprove every theory which I diagree with in Religion X's books" mindset, I might have learned valuable lessons from Religion X's reading material.

Thank you for the "eye-opener."

Surprised no, but it is more likely to be delusion than dishonesty. Only an honest doomsayer or a complete idiot would give an exact date within his own lifetime, and Camping has done it twice (now thrice I guess). That's how all the big fish like Hagee get away with it: Judgement Day is "near" but never quite here.

QP, listen to this very interesting podcast about the Rapture, Camping's prediction, and dispensationalism. It's from a Christian perspective, so don't think he's gonna be bashing religion:

http://onthewarningtrack.podbean.com/mf/web/ey5n6e/OTWT05162011.mp3

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

Hi RE Virus:

I listened to the audio clip which you provided a link to in the last post. You should note that, when the host of the show discusses the rapture, he points out that ALMOST ALL PROPONENTS of this idea support Israel. However, the word ALMOST suggests that some rapture supporters DO NOT support Israel.

Now, here is my opinion: one cannot judge a person of a certain faith based on how one's leaders behave, or on how the majority of members indigenous to his or her creed act. We must judge people based on their conduct, and resist the temptation to view them in a stereotypical manner. If you took a sample of virtuous individuals who belong to different religions, I am sure that you will find two commonalities among them--they are all loving and caring. I find fault, for example, with Harold Camping, but base my conclusion on how he behaves rather than what faith he belongs to.

I was reading New Testament verses in my King James Bible yesterday, and noticed how Christ chastised the Pharisees for behaving in a hypocritical way. Harold Camping "fits the mold" of the Teachers of the Law in the New Testament who have shown insincerity in their piety. For instance, Camping points out that the Levites, in the New Testament, would criticize anyone who did not thoroughly observe Jewish cleansing rituals. Nevertheless, unlike God-fearing Jews, such as Noah, Moses, and David, the Pharisees, as Camping explains, put their customs above God's commandments. Camping, too, claims that anybody who utters half-truths on a continuum is unsaved, and destined for destruction. While Camping's statement is Biblically valid, it is interesting to note that Camping promised everybody that, come May 21, 2011, Doomsday would begin. He also specified the exact time that massive earthquakes would start to signal that our world has come under God's Judgment. Whenever a skeptic asked Harold Camping on Open Forum if May 21, 2011 was the Day of Judgment, he always replied, "It will happen!" Sometimes, Camping would answer the question in a more detailed fashion, and, in addition to promising listeners that Armageddon would occur on May 21, 2011, would add the following statement: "Millions of people will die on that die and everyday thereafter!" Now that nothing tragic has happened on May 21, 2011, Camping is trying to "back out" of his prediction by offering the excuse that "he has made a mistake." Nevertheless, "I don't buy" Camping's excuse. Camping was so certain that his Doomsday date was correct that he mocked others who questioned how he arrived at this conclusion. Ultimately, Camping's surety in his faux date-setting makes him a liar. It also proves that he is a hypocrite, too, since Camping preaches that people should not tell prevarications, yet, in a Pharisee-like manner, he engages in the same conduct. This illustrates that Camping is a sinner, rather than a righteous individual. Perhaps the reason, then, why Camping speaks about the unsaved while pretending to be a Child of God is that, deep down inside, Camping fears that he might not be one of the elect. In order to deal with this fear, Camping simply, to borrow a Freudian term, "projects" his anxiety onto Open Forum listeners by insisting that the majority of them might not be one of God's Chosen People.

I'm not aware of any, but out of 20+ million Rapture believers, there might be half a dozen isolated cases.

Tell us your views the Catholics/Eastern Orthodox, on Judaism and Jews, and on Islam and the Muslims.

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

Hi RE Virus:

Let me digress from your question for a minute. Three posts ago, I said that, oftentimes, the reason I am resistant to some opinions is that I was educated in college to think in such a manner. Let me go further than that, and say my professors taught, when doing academic research, it is necessary to debate other critics. They did not say, though, that one must argue with different points of view when engaging in readings which do not involve scholarly research. Hence, I erroneously concluded that "what is good for the goose is good for the gander." Nevertheless, I was incorrect--there are times where it useful to examine literature with the intention of learning something new--and, in order to do so, one must resist the temptation to challenge every point in that particular text philosophically on a point-by-point basis. For me, coming to this realization demarcates maturation in my delineations.

Now, I will answer your question on Jews and Muslims. First of all, I am aware that Palestinian land was given to the Jews. I also understand that some members of the Israeli military act an inhumane fashion towards the Palestinians. Some Palestinians, as a result, retaliate by making Israelis the targets of violent assaults. However, not all Jews and Palestinians hate each other; instead, some Jews and Palestinians want to live together in peace. It is also interesting to note that the Nation of Israel predated the Nation of Palestine, and the Nation of Palestine held that land for many years before the Nation of Israel regained the territory which the Nation of Palestine once possessed. Was taking land away from the Palestinians justified? No. But, discriminating against Palestinians--or jeopardizing Jews with suicide attacks--will not improve Israeli-Palestinian relations. They will only, in fact, exacerbate them. This is why I find the President of Iran's plans "to wipe Israel off the map" distasteful, since doing so will require spilling the blood of virtuous Israelis. I am equally disgusted at John Hagee's speeches, ones which encourage the brutal oppression of Palestinian on the grounds that only the Jews are "God's chosen people." Such a plan will contribute to the slaughter of righteous Palestinians. Both the President of Iran and Hagee are individuals which hold extremist views, and, if listened to, will make the Israeli-Palestinian situation even worse.

Finally, if you are curious about what I think about practitioners of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faith, I will answer as I always have: there are good and bad people in every religion. I, for instance, hold Mother Theresa in high regard. I, too, have great respect for every follower of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faith, irrespective of race or ethnicity, who puts forth every conceivable effort to make a positive contribution to society. Unfortunately, some persons use religion to serve their base ends. Follow this link to see what I am talking about: http://www.reformation.org/vietnam.html.

I hope that I answered your queries to your liking.

You need to peruse this website for 10+ hours: www.khazaria.com


What if he never actually said that?


Sound like BS, but I will look into it with open mind. Is this related to Walter Veith in any way?


BTW, I agree with most of what you said.

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

Hi RE Virus:

I spent several hours reading about the Midieval Kingdom of Kharzaria, and need considerably more time before I reach an informed conclusion about the subject. However, I am impressed with the way in which the Khazars were 1) tolerant of other creeds, and 2) allowed members of each faith allowed to be adjudicated by their own laws. It sounds like the Khazars were far ahead of their time--even some so-called modern "liberals"--in the respective categories of cultural relativism and imperial administration. Ideally, Israel, in my opinion, ought to model their nation on the Midieval Kingdom of Khazaria.

I have mixed feelings about the confiscation of land from Palestinianians. Clearly, Israel can not revert to her 1967 borders. Doing so would not permit Israel to defend herself adequately against PLO attacks. By contrast, the Israeli trend of taking land away from the Palestinians for the sake of accumulating more land--and increasing Israeli's boundaries--is purposeless, and does nothing except satiate a country's greed. Hence, the problem is simply this: how much territory is needed for self-defense, and at what point does the seizing of land for the intent of domestic protection cross the boundaries into colonization? The inability to reach equilibrium with repect to this issue is largely responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian tension that people observe in that part of the world today.

As an aside, Tony Kushner (a Jew), author of the play Angels in America, a drama which confronts the controversial issues of homosexuality and AIDS in the United States, almost did not receive an honorary diploma for holding anti-Zionist views. But, if we consider the politically correct professors who educate today's college students, it is not in the least surprising. Unlike my professors, who believed in remaining open to new philosophies, even if they challenge one's convictions, many colleges are populated by politically correct academic instructors who refuse to say or to listen to anything which they deem offensive. It should be duly noted, though, that the aforementioned situation did not arise due to Jewish censorship. Rather, one can attribute this difficulty to the overwhelming majority of scholars who like to use their positions of prestige as a vehicle to attempt to push their political viewpoints on other people.

Keep in mind, though, that individuals can find good people everywhere--in Israel, in Palestinian territories, and even in academic institutions.

Take care.