EU, Solona in Bible Prophecy?

[adambyte]

The beast is called the "Revived Roman Empire".

What, if, instead of taking this passage literally, as in the physical space that the Roman Empire used to be (Europe), we take this metaphorically ( like the rest of your argumetn with horns and whatnot)... wouldn't the new Roman Empire be the U.S? Nowadays, the United States is the most influental empire on earth...

Not that that really proves anything. This prophecy stuff is just a whole lot of wild guessing until you realize what it means later when it actually happens.

[g/re/p]

Q - hey grep, do you want to debate bible prophesy
in a computer forum?

A - hell no!

[fryke]

I _really_ had to laugh out loud now. Thanks, g/re/p! You made my morning. Now I still need more coffee...

[wifemarsha@yaho]

Why fight over who the anti-christ is. It is clear to me that whoever it is has not yet been revealed completely. I say this because the bible says he will hold powers similar to Christ so as to deceive many. I have not heard of Bush or Solana doing any "feeding of the multitudes" or raising from the dead type of things, yet. I am not saying neither of them are decent candidates cause they probably are ,except Bush leaves office soon, I am only saying no one has been clearly shown as the antichrist yet. Keep watching folks so that you are not one who is deceived. For the Lord has told me I willl " Behold" "Soon" in dreams.- more importantly we should all watch and wait for our soon returning Lord in the clouds

[Rhisiart]

Revelations was written by Apocalypse of John. He had a beef with Rome. Much of what he wrote could apply to today (i.e. The Treaty of Rome). Equally, it could apply to the Rome of his day

The Talmud, the Bible and the Qu'ran are pretty ambiguous and none follow an accurate time frame. They are open to much misinterpretation and are actively manipulated by both Jew, Christian and Muslim fundamentalist.

The greatest threat to us now (as opposed to the Nazis and later the Soviets) is religious fundamentalism, which justifies its existence on a narrow interpretation of the three Holy Books and actively seeks inter-religious confrontation.

Bush, Blair, Bin Laden and Sharon all conspire(d) for the same.

[bbloke]

wifemarsha: Hello, welcome to the forums. I'd like to just make clear that I wasn't serious about Bush, don't worry.

rhisiart: I'd agree that religious texts can be taken out of context or misinterpreted, and "abused" by people of any religion (or of none... !). Although I'm no fan of religious fundamentalism, I'd disagree that it is the greatest threat to us now, as I think we face far, far bigger threats from other areas. Also, I'd like to sound a note of caution about when people start bashing religion, as we could equally say atheist fundamentalism is a big problem (intolerance etc.) and, if I want to stir things up a bit, it can be argued that the most barbaric/murderous regimes of the 20th century were "atheist."

[fryke]

Those didn't fight for "atheism" or anything, or with atheism as a rule or reason. There are, however, many religious wars. What are the bigger threats than religious threats? I'd say we'd be pretty good right now if terrorism as well as the war on terrorism weren't and no God or god would have to have a puppet attack other countries/religions etc.

[bbloke]

Originally Posted by fryke

Those didn't fight for "atheism" or anything, or with atheism as a rule or reason. There are, however, many religious wars.

Hang on... A couple of things there... One: yes, some of these regimes made atheism a point of the new system, persecuting (including murder of) those who were believers. That, to me, is inescapable. (Also, there are branches of this that we can go into, such as how atheist fundamentalists tend to argue that atheism makes them more reasonable and removes conflict.) Two: I dislike it when atheists remark about "religious wars," refusing to accept that an act could be perpetrated in the name of theism, but not actually stemming from the beliefs, but, on the other hand, refuse to accept the reverse (i.e. when accusations are made about atrocities in the name of atheism). "You can't have it both ways," as they say.

I continue to take the line that we are all human and have the same flaws! Those who are religious are not superior to atheists, and atheists are not superior to believers. I think a group who disagrees with either part of that sentence is "part of the problem," shall we say.

Originally Posted by fryke

What are the bigger threats than religious threats?

Take your pick... A coming energy crisis. Environmental issues. The divided between rich and poor (including on a world wide basis). The drive of materialism. More "routine" clashes between nations on the world stage, particularly when other nations are used as pawns. And so on. All brought about by man.

Originally Posted by fryke

I'd say we'd be pretty good right now if terrorism as well as the war on terrorism weren't and no God or god would have to have a puppet attack other countries/religions etc.

It was a bit hard to follow that sentence, but, from my interpretation of what you meant, I really, really have to disagree.