Rapture: Harold Camping's Prediction

[Raiga]

Originally Posted by Malkuth

Happy birthday then

Oh, no, my birthday's October 21, the alleged actual end of the world, after all the believers are whisked away in May (but thanks). And the explosions of apocalypse would have been like fireworks, and I'd light my cake with the burning bones of heretics...

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Raiga

Oh, no, my birthday's October 21, the alleged actual end of the world, after all the believers are whisked away in May (but thanks). And the explosions of apocalypse would have been like fireworks, and I'd light my cake with the burning bones of heretics...

Haha that's a pretty good idea for a birthday, too bad it's not gonna happen that way

[~Azure~]

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

I'm a Christian, and I'd just like to say that those guys are nutjobs.

That's news? I'm sure everyone knows that, even his followers, somewhere deep inside. He also predicted the rapture in 1993/1994.

[Nightbat®]

Meh, no worries peeps

Ragnarok, armageddon, judgementday, elections

if, when or where they may occur
Remember, read the bible and find out Jesus has died for our sins
so we could go rampant and kill every baby seal on earth, there's already a spot reserved in that boring old cloud in the sky for all of us

So if you ask me why there still must be a revelation?
Well, currently the church is still having problems with retconning the old testament

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by monster

Is it a further leap of faith or a lack of faith? God has said in the Bible that no one would know the date. If this guy claims to be able to predict the date, then he's showing a lack of faith in what God said and he's essentially calling God a liar. So if he claims to be a Christian, then at best this guy is ignorant, at worst, he's a liar. Crazy would be somewhere in the middle.

It's one thing to have faith, it's another to claim to have faith in something and at the same time to make a bold claim that contradicts the thing that you supposedly have faith in.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Requoted for Great Truth. As one Bible scholar says though (on TV, don't have the name)... you can take select snippets of the Bible out of context and create just about any offshoot lunacy you want. I was raised in Texas around a pack of splinter groups (Southern Baptist variants and evangelicals) who made the most amazing 'house of cards' assertions. Amazing enough (a village full of idiots?) that it started me doing my own research that led me to the directions I'm in today.

I definitely get your point. Thing is, and I know this all too well from Catholic education, the Christian church has had numerous events (schisms, reformations, etc) where different groups interpret the Bible differently (fundamentalists vs contextualists, then within those two groups you have further sub-divisions), and then split from each other to preserve their differing beliefs. Furthermore, different Biblical translations/traditions can even give different messages and different copies are held in esteem by different groups. On top of that, even within the same translations the Bible contradicts itself at times (an example: how Judas died).

With all this in mind, yeah, it might be justified to say he's not a Christian since the only commentary the Bible has on the subject says we will not know the date. But calling him crazy, or thinking his ideas outlandish, seems a bit hypocritical to me.

[solidguy]

And so it begins
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/showbiz...6908-23140877/

[Mystique]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I definitely get your point. Thing is, and I know this all too well from Catholic education, the Christian church has had numerous events (schisms, reformations, etc) where different groups interpret the Bible differently (fundamentalists vs contextualists, then within those two groups you have further sub-divisions), and then split from each other to preserve their differing beliefs. Furthermore, different Biblical translations/traditions can even give different messages and different copies are held in esteem by different groups. On top of that, even within the same translations the Bible contradicts itself at times (an example: how Judas died).

With all this in mind, yeah, it might be justified to say he's not a Christian since the only commentary the Bible has on the subject says we will not know the date. But calling him crazy, or thinking his ideas outlandish, seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Vexx and Monster have replied in my absence of which there isn't much I can add there. I'm Catholic myself (the worst of the bunch?) and yes in England alone I note the differences between the way people have service in church and what minute details they chose to acknowledge, but the base is the same.
However monster said it best. The 'craziness' comes when one abandons their humility and starts condemming others. As humans, no one has the right to condemn on a religious note except God, we're all imperfect, we all screw up.
While there are tons of peeps in town centres who preach 'the end is neigh, repent!', they don't go as far as to predict dates and the percentage of who and then get a freaking media circus outta it.
The 'crazy' comes when the majority of Christians from different flavours and bibles all quote and acknowledge the same thing (which is rare in itself, lol)
No human has this knowledge of when, how or who, so skipping over that little but heh, vastly important part already makes one lose major kudos.

It isn't the 'you're not Christian' peeps are saying (as far as I know) which is hypcrocritical, it's his arrogance and blantent disregard for the bottom line of his ramblings which puts him in the 'can't be taken seriously, bugger off already' box.

And I mentioned how this guy got the coverage he did (aside from US media being with stupid, there has to be more, I thought)
Then I find he owns a radio show, would that be correct?

PS: Solidguy, lady gaga's album has nada to do with this thread, did you post my mistake? You can delete and repost elsewhere or edit btw.

[synaesthetic]

He runs a radio show in Oakland, that's about it. The lunacy came from the Internets spreading cellphone camera shots of the billboard, the Youtube community discussing it all and the media pouring gas on the fire.

@ChainLegacy: If you want to get technical, believing in the existence of any deity--or anything at all for which there is a complete absence of evidence--is a delusion. Thus, any belief in a mystical, invisible, undetectable, unprovable, intangible, eternal and all-powerful god is, by definition, crazy.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

@ChainLegacy: If you want to get technical, believing in the existence of any deity--or anything at all for which there is a complete absence of evidence--is a delusion. Thus, any belief in a mystical, invisible, undetectable, unprovable, intangible, eternal and all-powerful god is, by definition, crazy.

As is the atheistic belief that there is no all-powerful or omnipotent entity controlling or being responsible for the multiverse.
Basing a viewpoint simply on the limited experience and/or knowledge of the human race is misplaced at best, egotistical at worst.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Therefore the only "sane" and/or logical viewpoint is one in which we openly admit we don't know what lies beyond death or if death is even an ending.

We have no friggin clue.

That's why individuals like this Camping fellow ought not to try and play the role of God and predict when the revelation is supposed to take place.

It doesn't matter whether the person is Harold Camping or Christopher Hitchens, when they start making proclamations about what absolutely IS or what absolutely ISN'T the red flag should go up in any sane person's mind to beware of such charlatans.

[Mystique]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

He runs a radio show in Oakland, that's about it. The lunacy came from the Internets spreading cellphone camera shots of the billboard, the Youtube community discussing it all and the media pouring gas on the fire.

@ChainLegacy: If you want to get technical, believing in the existence of any deity--or anything at all for which there is a complete absence of evidence--is a delusion. Thus, any belief in a mystical, invisible, undetectable, unprovable, intangible, eternal and all-powerful god is, by definition, crazy.

Indeed if it's a complete absence but that isn't the case with most religions, faiths or other spiritual sects, be it with scripts or human experiences.
The fact that there's something around us, working among us outside of the human race is evident, it's just easy to dismiss if it doesn't happen to you.
(As is the case with anything humans can't comprehend with another, sexuality comes to mind).

It's as intangible as the soul is intangible, we cannot see it, but we feel/sense it's presence. The rest as Asuras said is faith, as is commonly quoted 'faith is taking the first step when you cannot see the entire staircase'.
The base concept applies to religion perhaps but faith works in the same way for any aspect of our lives, chasing seemingly impossible dreams would be the next big example.

For some it's more than enough, for others, it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface and they remain purely logical.
To think about 85% of the world's population totally delusional for thousands of years is kinda amusing though

[Vexx]

People should not conflate logical analysis with faith. They're in no shape or form equivalent. However, don't also make the mistake of asserting as truth what is, simply, the "best model currently formulated based on available evidence".

[mysterious]

Originally Posted by Mystique

To think about 85% of the world's population totally delusional for thousands of years is kinda amusing though

Because the majority believe it, it must be true right? How the flat earth working out for you guys, or too bad this planet isnt the center of the whole universe. The difference between religion and cult is about how many members they have. I also condemn the scientists that hold onto old theory and refuse to acknowledge the new discovery that contradict to their old fossil theory.

By no mean, I claim that there is no thing out there in the vast universe that may defy human logic. But I am pretty sure all the gods and goddess on this earth aint. And I dont give a damn if there is a creator or not either. If that creator force me to abide by its rule, then it is just another dictator, nothing more nothing less.

[synaesthetic]

I didn't say there wasn't a god; I said there's no evidence of a god. I also said that believing in something for which there is no evidence is a delusion--which is true. Look it up. "A delusion is a belief which is mistaken or not substantiated yet held with vehemence."

Faith qualifies. Gods, especially the god Yahweh, are impossible to substantiate by definition!

If someone said that they believed in and worshipped Zeus, or Marduk, or Odin, I'm pretty sure most people--especially Christians--would consider them crazy (and the Christians would add immoral, evil, pagan, etc).

So what is it that makes the religion of the Greeks, the Babylonians and the Norsemen more crazy than the religion of Christianity? All of these religions promote the belief in supernatural beings that routinely do the impossible. I don't see any difference here whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Mystique

The fact that there's something around us, working among us outside of the human race is evident, it's just easy to dismiss if it doesn't happen to you.

Citation needed. Scripture is hardly proof; words written by men are not proof of the existence of divinity.

[Mystique]

Originally Posted by Vexx

People should not conflate logical analysis with faith. They're in no shape or form equivalent. However, don't also make the mistake of asserting as truth what is, simply, the "best model currently formulated based on available evidence".

If we are to look at it in that sense then it's just an eternal mass of grey as available evidence comes in all shapes and forms coupled with the fact of whether an individual can gain access or exposure to it or not.
Saying that, I've taken the hint.
Before it turns to religious thread #2, rather than to the topic at hand (of with Syn explained how it got outta hand in the first place, domo) I'll keep by the sidelines.
That just leaves 2012 then, we got just about 18months to go, let's make for some good times.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Citation needed. Scripture is hardly proof; words written by men are not proof of the existence of divinity.

Not just by scripture, by human experiences, Syn.

[judasmartel]

Originally Posted by monster

A fixed date has nothing to do with sending good people to paradise. Believers who have died before the Rapture would still go to Heaven, so getting a fixed date for the Rapture itself wouldn't mean a thing. Death would serve that purpose better, and unlike the Rapture, death is an undeniable part of our lives.

But it's not like God would kill somebody to keep him in line, no? Instead, he gives us problems. But yes, He DID kill people in the Old Testament times to keep the Israelites in line, but those deaths serve only as an example to the Israelites that they will die unless they obey His commandments.

Later on, in the New Testament times, God has decided to offer a chance of salvation to everyone, not just the Israelites, not just the Jews, through faith in his Son Jesus Christ. Why? Because God's people have already matured to the point that they understand why they must obey God's laws without expecting rewards for doing so and avoiding punishments by not doing otherwise.

It's like this: As kids, our parents use a "reward-punishment" system to keep us in line, but as we grow older, we learn how to lead a righteous life without expecting rewards and punishments because we realize that leading a life without God will cause nothing but sorrows and sufferings.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Mystique

If we are to look at it in that sense then it's just an eternal mass of grey as available evidence comes in all shapes and forms coupled with the fact of whether an individual can gain access or exposure to it or not.

Actually, yeah --- everything you take as input with your available senses are used to form an internal model of "what is out there". If the model is better, you're more likely to survive and get along... if the model is worse, you're likely to hit a wall or be eaten. No model is "true"... it can never be more than the "best model based on the data collected". If you aren't willing to tweak it or throw it out based on new evidence/data, then that's a malfunction

If a spiritual belief or "model of the unseen" doesn't interfere with basic behavior, success, or survival ... then its unlikely to be a problem. As we see with this "end of days" example, the behavior of certain splinter systems, extremism, or highly aggressive belief systems are often ruinous to the social fabric - the individuals captured by it and the people around them suffer.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Mystique

Not just by scripture, by human experiences, Syn.

Okay. Not letting this one go.

I can assert the existence of an invisible horse-like creature which I nevertheless know is pink in colour somehow. Were I to do that, you and everyone else would say, quite rightly, that I am "delusional" or experiencing "hallucinations", particularly if I couldn't provide any evidence to serve as proof of my assertions.

What, then, is the difference between this, and "personal religious experiences"?

And yet people would willingly throw away their life savings, their futures and the futures of their own children, over such unproven assertions; worse still however, are those who know of this tendency, and have no qualms making a fast buck out of it, like in this case.

It disgusts me.

[Asuras]

Originally Posted by judasmartel

It's like this: As kids, our parents use a "reward-punishment" system to keep us in line, but as we grow older, we learn how to lead a righteous life without expecting rewards and punishments because we realize that leading a life without God will cause nothing but sorrows and sufferings.

Or so one would hope occurs. Remember that not everyone who follows god is going in the right direction.

[Mystique]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Okay. Not letting this one go.

I can assert the existence of an invisible horse-like creature which I nevertheless know is pink in colour somehow. Were I to do that, you and everyone else would say, quite rightly, that I am "delusional" or experiencing "hallucinations", particularly if I couldn't provide any evidence to serve as proof of my assertions.

What, then, is the difference between this, and "personal religious experiences"?

And yet people would willingly throw away their life savings, their futures and the futures of their own children, over such unproven assertions; worse still however, are those who know of this tendency, and have no qualms making a fast buck out of it, like in this case.

It disgusts me.

Syn said the same thing to me, although we've taken it to our private walls now. What I've bolded there disgusts me as much as it does you. My reply was personalised towards Syn, feel free and anyone else to read it between me and her in answer to your latest post.

In short: When the nature of what one says is based on material profit coupled with gaining power or wealth, that's when the red flags go up and one would think 'hey, wait a minute'...
Manipulation comes in all forms.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by judasmartel

But it's not like God would kill somebody to keep him in line, no? Instead, he gives us problems. But yes, He DID kill people in the Old Testament times to keep the Israelites in line, but those deaths serve only as an example to the Israelites that they will die unless they obey His commandments.

Later on, in the New Testament times, God has decided to offer a chance of salvation to everyone, not just the Israelites, not just the Jews, through faith in his Son Jesus Christ. Why? Because God's people have already matured to the point that they understand why they must obey God's laws without expecting rewards for doing so and avoiding punishments by not doing otherwise.

It's like this: As kids, our parents use a "reward-punishment" system to keep us in line, but as we grow older, we learn how to lead a righteous life without expecting rewards and punishments because we realize that leading a life without God will cause nothing but sorrows and sufferings.

That's where we disagree. I refuse to consider humanity to somehow be more mature today than 3000 years ago. What happened is a change in political structure; The Old Testament was written when it was acceptable for a ruler to commit mass murder, because that was what rulers do. So it was fine to kill the male first born of all of Egypt because that's what a human king would have done.

Any Christian today would be unrecognisable to those of the days of Constantine. And in another 1000 years, assuming Christianity survives, future worshippers would once again be unrecognisable to people of today.

Moral-values change. Religion doesn't shape morals; morals shape religion.