It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by BO XIAN
Yet, demonic godless people have ended up in charge of Jerusalem under the guise of the Israeli government.
Oh wait, let me guess...it all part of the "plan"?
Let me remind you that the covenant covenant with Abraham was based on bloodline, NOT religion.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam never existed when the covenant was made.
I certainly agree that the Covenant was based on DNA, essentially. . . . as a gift of Almighty God to HIS BUDDY, ABRAHAM . . . to Isaac to Jacob . . .
It doesn't sound like a Muslim belief as far as I know anything about such . . . having had a Muslim roomate for over a year.
However, He has also said that He will decimate them at one stage for their horrid treatment of the children of Jacob.
The important things are to convert or destroy all non-Muslims. That's what the Imam's focus on.
You (wrongfully) hold that Islam only seeks to convert or destroy all non-muslims.
Ironically, you also believe that the central figure of christianity also seeks to convert or destroy all non-christians.
It still appears to me that you are groping for any excuse to disbelieve the fairly plain verses about the END TIMES.
I gather you have not read the 109+ verses in the Koran plus the umpteen in the Hadith which exhort ALL THE FAITHFUL to do exactly that.
In terms of Christ at Armageddon . . . yeah, all unbelievers in His Lordship will be dealt with at that time. However, God Himself acting like God Himself
Some scholars believe that the whole point of the Great Tribulation period is to show the Israelites their desperate need of God; discipline them for foresaking God; and introduce them to their true Messiah after the 3.5 years of Tribulation and the Abomination of Desolation by the Anti-Christ in the new Temple.
Based on Gordon Allport's theoretical distinction between mature and immature religion (see Allport and Ross 1967), the construction of an intrinsic-extrinsic scale to measure different religious orientations appeared to clarify the troubling finding that general measures of religion had positively correlated with prejudice. Consistent with Allport's conceptualization of mature religion, it was found that only extrinsic religion, or religion as a means, correlated with prejudice. Intrinsic religion, or religion as an end, characterized the unprejudiced and was compatible with Allport's views of mature religion. The scale to measure religious orientation, initially conceived as a continuum from extrinsic to intrinsic, quickly generated interest among empirical researchers. Numerous studies have been published that relate intrinsic and extrinsic religion to a variety of individual difference variables such as coping styles, narcissism, guilt, fear of death, a wide variety of religious experiences, various cognitive processes, and varieties of prejudice.
Simply put, an intrinsic (I) religious orientation is described as being more mature in that the believer views religion as an end into itself. That is, the believer believes without clearly identifiable external motives for doing so. In contrast, an extrinsic (E) religious orientation is immature and is more of a means to some other end. That is, belief is motivated external factors (e.g., social acceptance, advancement, etc.). E (but not I) is correlated with prejudice.
Modern I-E scales are set up so that I and E are thought of as separate constructs where individuals score along two separate dimensions (i.e., low E to high E and low I to high I). Research has identified many negative correlates of high E (e.g., narcissism, guilt, fear of death, aggression, etc.).
Current work in the psychology of religion is characterized by the assumption that measuring religiosity as a unitary construct produces misleading results. Instead, the field has been influenced by the separation of religiosity into E and I orientations. The practical implication is that most of what we think of as the negative correlates of religious belief have been supported for extrinsic religiosity but not intrinsic religiosity. It is also noteworthy that extrinsic religiosity is much more highly correlated with measures of religious fundamentalism than is intrinsic religiosity.