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.

 

Will evil return after the Reign of Christ?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by asmeone2
 
Revelation actually says Satan will be bound in the abyss for 1000 years then loosed again to gather the armies one last time. He'll be beaten yet again and then will be cast into the lake of fire for eternity.



Please remember that I am not trying to imply that Satan would rise up again. I merely mentioned him for reference purposes. My thought was that if Satan can bring evil into a perfect world, what is to stop someone else from doing that after Satan has been defeated?

[edit on 17-8-2008 by asmeone2]




posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2I like to think of the word tree as a metaphorical description of the knowledge itself.

Just as the most enormous trees start out as no more than an acorn, the changes that come from us trying to decide what is right and wrong are enormous.

I think there has been harm done from us figting over what is good and evil than there is from evil itself.


I like that view of it. Makes sense. I am not sure why people are persistent that the trees spoken of in the bible are used in the literal sense.

And to the second thought, I think we are defining evil when we judge. Take for instance fornication. That has been labeled evil and therefore has become evil in our mind. Adam and Eve weren't "married" and yet they obviously screwed because they had kids (again, for arguements sake I am speaking as though I believe these stories in their literal sense). Screwing someone to fulfill that desire is only wrong bc WE made it wrong by judging it. The urge is there, and this most will agree on, so why should it be denied if both parties involved in the act are consenting? Because someone told us not to?

It is the being told that something is wrong that makes us condemn ourselves and others and that in and of itself could be the evil.... the judging. (just speculating)



This is very interesting to me, because (I don't remember where in the Bible) didn't got originally set the Israelites up without a king, and only appointed them one after they complained about it?


I do know there was a time that Israel had judges rather than a king and I think that it was at this time that they were complaining for a king, if I remember correctly.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Exactly what I was talking about.


Compartively speaking very few people do "wrong" because they have a desire to do evil.

Most of the harm comes from people who feel that their version of right is the ultimate one.

Take marraige for instance. What we expect of the man and the woman involved is so rigid, it is beyond rediculous. There are unspoken rules for who, how, when, you marry. Society frowns on you if you have an untraditional marraige--for instance a large age gap, a social status gap, an open relationship, and in some places, a mixture of races. And if you decide that you want to end that relationship, the legal process and costs complicate an already painful process beyond beleif.

The right and wrong of these things should be decided only by the parties involved, yet society, or at least portions of it, decide that they are abmornal or morally reprehensive. In this situation it's the knowledge of the principal good vs. evil, and applying it where they see fit, that causes the damage, not the action being done.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by asmeone2
 
Revelation actually says Satan will be bound in the abyss for 1000 years then loosed again to gather the armies one last time. He'll be beaten yet again and then will be cast into the lake of fire for eternity.



Please remember that I am not trying to imply that Satan would rise up again. I merely mentioned him for reference purposes. My thought was that if Satan can bring evil into a perfect world, what is to stop someone else from doing that after Satan has been defeated?

I think the misunderstanding is it says during the millinial (sp?) reign of Christ on Earth when Satan is bound and cast into the abyss for that time that sin will be restrained by "circumstance", meaning it will still be a part of man inherently, but with Satan bound he won't be able to tempt people for that time.

I think evil will completely be eradicated forever when that 1,000 years are complete and all sinful men and Satan are cast for good into the lake of fire for eternity.

Even though Satan will be bound for the maority of the 1,000 years there will still be humans on Earth during that time, and there will still be the ability for them to sin because of their own free will.



[edit on 18-8-2008 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


The very idea of marriage is laughable to me after how much $$ and stress my divorce caused both of us.

Even if you believe in the bible and ESPECIALLY if you believe the bible, the idea of keeping your options open should not be considered a sin. Look at David and others who had wives AND concubines. Some ppl are just naturally drawn to having multiple partners and if the partners are fine with this, why should it be considered a sin?

I like having one, personally, but I would never waste my time with marriage again. I want the option to up and leave w/out having to pay money or go through stress to do it to remain open. Sometimes ppl REALLY DO grow apart
and it doesn't have to be an ugly split; but because of all the $$ and stress often ppl that normally could do it in a friendly way end up angry at the other bc they consider all that money lost and stress the other person's fault.

I will live with someone that I am compatable with and I will have sex with them, and I won't feel ounce of guilt for that just because others think it is wrong... In fact, I will be enjoying it very much hehe. It is only wrong in their head...... not mine. Judge not lest you be judged makes a lot of sense when you think about it in this light.




[edit on 18-8-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   
This discussion is interesting, but one point I have yet to see made is this. Free will is/was what makes humans different from other creations, ie animals, angels, etc. Even in a glorified body, eliminating the free will would be to eliminate what makes us human. The idea is God WANTS us to follow Him of our own free will. I can only imagine then that past Christ's 1000 year reign free will would still stand, hence so would our ability to do evil. Now the only question that remains is will our desire to do evil still exist? This I cannot answer definitively, but my personal opinion is if the presence of God is half how it is described in the bible, I wouldn't want to mess that up. Although it apparently wasn't enough to keep us from eating from the tree to begin with.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


The idea that marraige means that you essentially own someone is insulting to me. I wouldn't want to own a man, neither would I want to be owned by one.

I am happy to be single and celibate right now--it's far less complicated. It I were in a relationship though I would be fine if it were an open one--the thing that would make me angry is if my partner was pretending to be dedicated exclusively to me, when in fact he was not. In that situation it would be the loss of trust, and not the fact that he was having sex with someone other than me, that would make me angry.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2In that situation it would be the loss of trust, and not the fact that he was having sex with someone other than me, that would make me angry.


Very true! Which is why I say marriage is a ridiculous idea. If your husband (or wife) betrays your trust, you are forced to pay big bucks and waste your time and energy to get away from his arse. That's why I say I won't be duped again into the marriage idea. If my trust is betrayed (which at any time it can be despite how much you *think* you know them and are "one with them"
), I want to pick up and leave with out arguing about it or being raped by the system.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Because of the way the two characters in this fictional drama have been cast, you can't have one without the other. In the way every light creates a shadow, and every shadow requires a light, the characters of "Christ" and "Satan" cannot exist without each other. This is the yin and yang.

The Zoroastrian concept of a battle between good and evil appeals to our human sensibilities and love of a good contest, particularly in this case, as it symbolically represents the ongoing struggle we have within ourselves either to do good things or bad. Actually, though the idea of either a Satan or Christ existing without each other is like only having only one football team (whichever is your favorite) in a league. What is the point? As it is, one team battles another on the field, one emerges victorious this year, and then next year they start again, over and over.

We really don't want anyone to win. We just want to see the contest. That's why the prophecies always make it seem like it's going to happen just around the corner, instead of now and always. It allows us to always be imagining and anticipating the "grand battle," without it ever actually happening, therefore ending our fun.


[edit on 18-8-2008 by Nohup]



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2I'm going to take the Bible at face value for this post and assume that things will play out like Revelations implies they will.

The Apocalypse of John (also translated as "Revelation" of John, which is singular) was the most controversial book in the New Testament canon, on account of the unclear nature of the prophecies and controversy over its authorship (who some claimed is attributed to "John the Elder" not the Apostle John). Eusebius of Caesarea describes the controversy in his day, and several sources (manuscripts, canon lists, and early writers) omit it from the New Testament canon, including:

* Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) - Catechetical Lectures
* Gregory of Nazianus (329-389)
* Synod of Laodicea (~363)
* Apostolic Canons (~380)
* Amphilochius of Iconium (after 394)
* Codex Claromontanus (300's?)
* Pe#ta (400's?)

And it was never cited in the letters of:

* Ignatius of Antioch (martyred ~110 CE)
* Polycarp of Smyrna(~70-~110 A.D.)

The book is never read in the Church during Eastern Orthodox liturgies.

The point of this posting is to emphasize that the Church has always viewed this book as one which interpretation is very difficult. The popularization of its symbolism has been hyped by "biblical scholars" such as Tim LaHay and Jerry Jenkins, who made money hand-over-fist in their fiction.

No one knows what will happen. They cannot even agree on what the millennial reign entails or means. It is fun to speculate, but it has little or no bearing on reality.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
The idea that marraige means that you essentially own someone is insulting to me. I wouldn't want to own a man, neither would I want to be owned by one.


While off-topic, that is a very sad view of marriage.

In context of this forum, Christian marriage is a sacred and significant relationship which is used to illustrate the bond between Christ and His Church. Ownership and possessiveness are only synonyms for control... and marriage is not about control. It is about love, respect, and a mutual bond which transcends all other relationships. Sex is only one aspect, and over time becomes quite a minor one at that.

I would go so far as to say that the view of marriage described in your post is one that is slavery or bondage, and is doomed to fail. Who would ever want to participate in such?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   



While off-topic, that is a very sad view of marriage.

In context of this forum, Christian marriage is a sacred and significant relationship which is used to illustrate the bond between Christ and His Church. Ownership and possessiveness are only synonyms for control... and marriage is not about control. It is about love, respect, and a mutual bond which transcends all other relationships. Sex is only one aspect, and over time becomes quite a minor one at that.

I would go so far as to say that the view of marriage described in your post is one that is slavery or bondage, and is doomed to fail. Who would ever want to participate in such?


That is not MY view of what marraige should be, but one that often plays out in the real world when one spouse becomes posessive of the other one.

It is a perversion of the "Christian Marraige." (in quotes because the idea of marraige was around long before that). Ideally two people should be dedicated to each other and monogamous in order to show respect for the other parter. They should already be strong as people, who don't need anyone to "complete them" and share their lives together because they love each other.

All too one or both or the spouses are insecure so that ideal of marraige gets twisted into something grotesque. One partner beleives they own the other, physically and/or mentally, and this leads to the breakdown of trust and the supplantation of love with suspicion. Jealousy is an ugly, ugly thing.

Which is not to say that I am totally against marraige. I'm not, I just think that society shoudl reconsider how they view it: I think the number one thing that breaks marraiges is the way that society expects people to marry young, so many people get married quickly without really knowing who they, let alone their partner, are.

I'm not writing "traditional" gender roles off, either. They can be very satisfying, provided that they are valued equally.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScienceDadaWhile off-topic, that is a very sad view of marriage.

In context of this forum, Christian marriage is a sacred and significant relationship which is used to illustrate the bond between Christ and His Church. Ownership and possessiveness are only synonyms for control... and marriage is not about control. It is about love, respect, and a mutual bond which transcends all other relationships. Sex is only one aspect, and over time becomes quite a minor one at that.

I would go so far as to say that the view of marriage described in your post is one that is slavery or bondage, and is doomed to fail. Who would ever want to participate in such?


It is slavery and bondage..... just not to each other. It is slavery and bondage of you both as a couple to the state.

Your love is not less or more because you have a piece of paper. If someone says they "need" the piece of paper to have your proof of love or security, then they are not loving you for who you are and (most likely unintentionally) entrapping you into a contract to sign your love over to the state.

Should something go wrong in the marriage, it is not a matter just btw the two of you.. it is a matter btw the two of you and the state.

If you want to walk away bc of a breech of trust, you can't w/out first paying the lawyers who in turn pay the state.

Marriage certificates are scams. It ends up causing more strife in most ppl than good.

Love should not be defined by a piece of paper and if it is "enhanced" bc of that piece of paper you are confusing love with security.

I will never lock someone into staying with me through a marriage certificate. If they want to be with me, they will be and if they decide they don't want to then I can respect that decision w/out having to pay a ridiculous amount of $$ to walk away.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
My understanding of revelations is once he comes to power he will rule the world for seven years. Then armegeddon will ensue and Christ will come back to defeat evil. After that the earth and heaven will co-mingle for eternity.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
My understanding of revelations is once he comes to power he will rule the world for seven years. Then armegeddon will ensue and Christ will come back to defeat evil. After that the earth and heaven will co-mingle for eternity.


whoo hoo
Doesn't that sound like fun?

Either be defeated by good (as defined in the bible) or be defeated with good. The morals of the holy crowd make me want to puke as it is in its diluted form...... can you imagine it in its purest form?... no more learning through experience and enjoying the experience and learning in all its glory and having to, for all eternity, do what you are told to do by somene that you can't disagree with or question.

I guess if these are my only options, sign me up for the first one. I may roast, but at least I will be roasting with peace of mind. Just gonna make my handbasket comfy for the ride while it lasts.


Damn, I wish that we could have at least invented a smarter and more wise god that had an option C.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
I see lots of misconceptions, and outright wrong information posted in this thread.

Here's the deal, summed up in a short amount of time. It's late, so I was too lazy to respond to any individual post, or show citations. But here is the deal:

At a certain point, a human is going to be directly possessed by Satan. This will occur 1/2 way through what is called the "The Tribulation". By this time, the tribulation will have been underway for 3 1/2 years. Satan will, LITERALLY, rule earth for the next 3 1/2 years. This is called the time of "Great Tribulation" or "Jacob's Trouble". Incidently, he is most often referred to as "The Beast", along with his cohort, "The False Prophet".

Sometime either right before, or during the tribulation, the "saints" (i.e., people that believe in Jesus as God in human flesh) will be taken off the earth in the "twinkling of an eye". There are good arguments for it being before the trib, as well as 1/2 way through the trib. It cannot, however, be at the end of the tribulation, because no one knows the day or hour of this "rapture", but we know the day and hour of Jesus final return to earth: Exactly 3 1/2 years (1,260 days if I remember correctly) from the time the beast sits in the temple at Jerusalem and declares himself God.

At the end of the 7 years of the tribulation, Jesus Christ will return to earth. No longer the Lamb of God, he will return as the Lion of Judah. He will be a warrior-king, just like David was. (As an aside, all of you people that expect a new-age hippie Jesus are going to be in for a mighty shock!). After he has dealt with the the goings on in and around Israel, he will capture the Beast and throw him DIRECTLY into the lake of fire. He won't even get the judgment before God that the rest of mankind gets. (Can't remember if the false prophet joins him too) Satan is bound in chains, and cast into the abyss (the same place Abaddon was released from some 2-5 years earlier)

At this point, and for the next 1,000 years, Christ will rule over the ENTIRE EARTH. He is said to rule over the nations with a "rod of iron". What this means (surmised and inferred) is that he will deal swiftly and terribly with any country that tries to get out of line. This is referred to as the "Millinium" (sp?).

During the Millinium (too lazy to look up correct spelling), the desserts will bloom with life, there will be no sickness, and people will either not die, or will die at a very, very old age. The reason there is some confusion over this is that the bible says that if a "child" (and it does use that specific word) dies at the age of 100, it will be considered cursed by God.

Also during this time, the animal kingdom will also be lifted from the curse placed on it with Adam's fall. The bible speaks about a lamb and a lion being walked together by a child, and that children will play around a cobra's den, and not be harmed. The number of people on the planet are said to number "as the sands of the seashores".

At the end of the 1,000 years, Satan will be loosed from his prison for a short time. He will foster a rebellion, and everyone in on this rebellion will gather around Jerusalem to attack it. At that time, fire will come down DIRECTLY from the throne of God, and kill everyone involved in the rebellion. At this time, Satan is cast into the lake of fire.

Shortly after this, the entire universe is burned up (apparently), and a new heaven and a new earth are created. Everyone will also be judged at this time (before or after the new earth, I can't remember which). Then, a city described as approximately 1,400 miles long, wide, and high (if I remember the distances correctly) will descend and be the throne of God.

He then promises to mankind that they will never sin again.

So, the answer to your question is that no, sin will never again enter the picture after it is dealt with at the very last rebellion. You have that promise from God.
How exactly that is going to be happen, we are not told.

A few things that a lot of Christians don't know: 1) Before he even created the universe, Jesus knew he would have to come down and redeem mankind. 2) Jesus was the one who actually created the universe, angels, and men. 3) Mankind's final place of existence isn't going to be heaven, but earth. (I don't think that means we will be "confined" to earth, but that it will be our "home base" so to speak)

(Note: Please forgive me if I got some of the details a little off, as it is very late, and I am tired. But the crux of the matter, and the general overall story is pretty accurate.)



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Thanks Sir C. Your explanation is much more accurate then mine. It's been awhile since I picked up my Bible. Wonder what happens after the millenia?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 




I see lots of misconceptions, and outright wrong information posted in this thread.


Well, for arguements sake, lets hypothetically say the bible is a book to be paid attention to when it comes to prophecy. I find the first line of your post laughable considering that if you take the bible at its word and not your interpretation, pre trib rapture is a load of bs that can't be found ANYWHERE in the bible. It is merely a misinterpretation based on a verse here, a verse there, and spliced together.

It is like taking bits and pieces off of this reply page and splicing them together and saying wa-flippin-la! "We are sparingly posting ignorance and could use personal identifiable information as subject by administrators of ATS."

That is what this page I am on right now says...... I SWEAR IT!! so it is fact. I am not lying..... it *DOES* say this.. just not in THAT order


So, go back, read the bible as is and not as you were told to. What you said is both a misconception and out right WRONG




[edit on 19-8-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by ScienceDadaWhile off-topic, that is a very sad view of marriage.

In context of this forum, Christian marriage is a sacred and significant relationship...


It is slavery and bondage..... just not to each other. It is slavery and bondage of you both as a couple to the state.


I really didn't intend to get off topic. Also, out of respect to the the replies from both you and the OP, I was talking about Christian marriage because the topic of the OP was the return of Christ, so I was trying to stay in the spirit of the topic.

Perhaps this would be an interesting topic to start its own thread?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


I see lots of misconceptions, and outright wrong information posted in this thread.

So, go back, read the bible as is and not as you were told to. What you said is both a misconception and out right WRONG


I concur with justamomma. Your story makes nice fiction novels and exciting recruitment stories, but it is really analogous to a child trying to interpret W.B. Yeats or an infant reading a box of cheerios.

The Bible is not a book; it is a library. So, you don't interpret "it", you interpret "them". So even if you could understand the Apocalypse, your fiction is a hodge-podge of various verses of your choice to make a sort of theological fingerpainting. The Apocalypse of John cannot be understood in the absence of the liturgical life of the Church, of which Protestants have little to zero experience. You simply are not equipped to even attempt an interpretation, except for the purposes of entertainment.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join