Evidence for God from Science

Hi everyone. I believe God's purpose is to create a new form of society which will end poverty, global warming and over use of resources, and bring World Peace and save mankind from Nuclear War. World Peace is mentioned in the Bible, and instructions are given on how to obtain it.

Luk 2:13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Luk 2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Isa 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

John Lennon sang a song "Imagine" which told us about a new form of society which is believed by many to be able to bring World Peace. Here's some key statements from that song: "Imagine all the people, living life in peace", "the world will be as one", "Imagine no possessions", "no need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man", "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world".

Christ's Apostles attempted to create such a society, in the Book of Acts. It was not planned that they would be successful at that time though.

Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Act 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

Compare that to John Lennon's song Imagine. The "were of one heart and of one soul" or "singleness of heart" = "the World will be as one", and "all things in common" = "sharing all the world" or "Imagine no possessions".

Isa 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Isa 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

The "root of Jesse" is Jesus, so it is saying here that Jesus would be an ensign or like a flag to the non-jews, so that they'd form a new religion. The verse after that suggests that God will send someone after Jesus. That is the person who'll bring World Peace.

I believe this new society must be setup and will be setup in the next few years, therefore this person is already alive today. I invite you to search the Internet for anyone who might be capable of doing the job, who God might appoint to the task. Odds are, that person can be found by searching the net. It only takes a day to do a pretty vast search of the Internet.

I am one of many people trying to form a new society, and I've searched and found most of the others. Most of them are atheists, which doesn't totally rule them out, but makes them less likely. Most of them are also arrogant, "my way or the highway" which I'd say does totally rule them out, as God would seek someone "meek" and able to hear the still small voice of God.

If you are going to search though, I advice you keep a very open mind. That person will not have the same religious beliefs as you. The religions of man have always been strongly influenced by man. This person will have gotten his religion from God. He may form a new religion.

Also, don't go by popularity or wealth or any other means. Popularity is simply an indication of what people think is capable of doing the job. God does not choose based on such factors. God can take a very poor and unpopular person and make him change the world.

The name Jesus actually is the same as Joshua, and it means God's savior (among other similar things), so there is no reason to believe this person will be named Jesus. That name is like a title which would automatically apply to whoever God chooses to save mankind, no matter what his parents named him.

So why not spend some time looking for such a person? You could search for "save mankind" or "end poverty" or "World Peace" or "new form of society" or something like that. As Jesus said, " seek, and ye shall find".

Tony

Remember the lyrics of Imagine also mentioned about imagining a world without religion.

The only person that will bring world peace is Jesus Christ and no other. The person you describe in your post is in Revelations and that is the Antichrist.

Silvertusk.

Silvertusk wrote:Remember the lyrics of Imagine also mentioned about imagining a world without religion.

The only person that will bring world peace is Jesus Christ and no other. The person you describe in your post is in Revelations and that is the Antichrist.

Silvertusk.

I have similar thoughts. The world has been promised peace (and other things) since time immemorial. It has never happened. Our world is not progressing towards a perfect society, but an exceptionally lazy one (physically and intellectually). Peace is not the absence of war. You can't have peace without justice, and you can't have justice without morality. Our world is not moving towards a goal of moral perfection but of 'pursuit of happiness' at the expense of morality. I believe this will only get worse, and that more and more people will come along, like the current US president, who promise 'change', 'hope', and other manner of undefined but impressive sounding rhetoric who will only make things worse.

What you describe might happen in some regards, but overall I think humanity is destined for some unimaginably terrible times within the century. The basic tenets of society (families) are being dissolved like never before in human history. Its not going to be pretty, though news agencies might try to make it look that way.

World peace will never occur until the day jesus comes and rules.

The muslim religon is huge, their religon says to kill us. The Athiest Religion exists an they have no set moral code, and they are growing as well, I expect another stalin or hitler soon from them.

The only person that can create a world of peace united is Jesus, when he returns all who are good at heart will become christian, and only then can world peace be reached.

Murray wrote:World peace will never occur until the day jesus comes and rules.

The muslim religon is huge, their religon says to kill us. The Athiest Religion exists an they have no set moral code, and they are growing as well, I expect another stalin or hitler soon from them.

The only person that can create a world of peace united is Jesus, when he returns all who are good at heart will become christian, and only then can world peace be reached.

Amen.. You are correct Murray.

The person you describe in your post is in Revelations and that is the Antichrist.

Jesus' Apostles created a commune, and they were the experts on Jesus. Also, Carl Marx was recently honored by the Vatican for having the same goals as Jesus.

The Antichrist would do the opposite. The Antichrist does the opposite of Jesus in pretty much every way. The Antichrist promotes hatred and greed and money based society.

World peace will never occur until the day jesus comes and rules.

You seem to miss the point. Jesus is alive now, and could be anyone. Jesus is a title which means "God's saviour" or the person God will send to save mankind. I'm saying you can find him with a simple search of the Internet.

You are supposed to be on the look out. Does God or Jesus have to do everything for you? Did you ever think that just maybe, saving mankind is an awfully big task, and just maybe that person might need some help? What ever happened to the old saying, "God helps those who help themselves".

Tony

Ant wrote:The Antichrist would do the opposite

If you do a study on the word "Anti" as used in the Greek New Testament, you would understand that when the word is used in context with Satan, it doesn't mean opposite at all, it means 'instead of'.

Ant wrote:The Antichrist promotes hatred and greed and money based society.

True. But when the antichrist returns here he won't be doing that because he will never be believed. Satan uses deception more than any other method. Instead:

Dan 8:25 (KJV) And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

Ant wrote:Also, Carl Marx was recently honored by the Vatican for having the same goals as Jesus.

Would you please provide the link that claims that? I would like to read it.

According to Karl Marx, religion is like other social institutions in that it is dependent upon the material and economic realities in a given society. It has no independent history; instead it is the creature of productive forces. As Marx wrote, “The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.” According to Marx, religion can only be understood in relation to other social systems and the economic structures of society. In fact, religion is only dependent upon economics, nothing else — so much so that the actual religious doctrines are almost irrelevant. This is a functionalist interpretation of religion: understanding religion is dependent upon what social purpose religion itself serves, not the content of its beliefs. Marx’s opinion is that religion is an illusion that provides reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it is. Much as capitalism takes our productive labor and alienates us from its value, religion takes our highest ideals and aspirations and alienates us from them, projecting them onto an alien and unknowable being called a god.

Marx has three reasons for disliking religion. First, it is irrational — religion is a delusion and a worship of appearances that avoids recognizing underlying reality. Second, religion negates all that is dignified in a human being by rendering them servile and more amenable to accepting the status quo. In the preface to his doctoral dissertation, Marx adopted as his motto the words of the Greek hero Prometheus who defied the gods to bring fire to humanity: “I hate all gods,” with addition that they “do not recognize man’s self-consciousness as the highest divinity.” Third, religion is hypocritical. Although it might profess valuable principles, it sides with the oppressors. Jesus advocated helping the poor, but the Christian church merged with the oppressive Roman state, taking part in the enslavement of people for centuries. In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church preached about heaven, but acquired as much property and power as possible.

Martin Luther preached the ability of each individual to interpret the Bible, but sided with aristocratic rulers and against peasants who fought against economic and social oppression. According to Marx, Protestantism, was a production of new economic forces as early capitalism developed. New economic realities required a new religious superstructure by which it could be justified and defended.

Marx’s most famous statement about religion comes from a critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law:

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion (Christianity specifically), is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."

Marx is saying that religion is meant to create illusory fantasies for the poor. Economic realities prevent them from finding true happiness in this life, so religion tells them this is OK because they will find true happiness in the next life. Marx is not entirely without sympathy: people are in distress and religion does provide solace, just as people who are physically injured receive relief from opiate-based drugs. The problem is that opiates fail to fix a physical injury — you only forget your pain and suffering. This can be fine, but only if you are also trying to solve the underlying causes of the pain. Similarly, religion does not fix the underlying causes of people’s pain and suffering — instead, it helps them forget why they are suffering and causes them to look forward to an imaginary future when the pain will cease instead of working to change circumstances now. Even worse, this “drug” is being administered by the oppressors who are responsible for the pain and suffering. Marx did not make religion the primary enemy of workers and communists. Had Marx regarded religion as a more serious enemy, he would have devoted more time to it.

Ant wrote:Jesus is alive now, and could be anyone.

It seems you are insinuating that Christ is alive on Earth presently? and/or has taken human form again? According to Acts ch 1, Jesus ascended into the heavenly dimension to sit at the right hand of the Father and according to Psalm 110, Jesus sits at the right hand of God until all His enemies are here on Earth. Satan is God's enemy, therefore Jesus cannot return here until Satan in his role as antichrist, is here first.

Ant wrote:Jesus is a title which means "God's saviour" or the person God will send to save mankind.

Well God already sent Him 2000 years ago to save mankind. The second coming of Christ will not be like the first. Christ is not returning here as a babe to be crucified but as the King of kings and Lord of lords to pour out God's wrath and redeem believers.

Ant wrote:Did you ever think that just maybe, saving mankind is an awfully big task, and just maybe that person might need some help?

Jesus does not need any help saving mankind, since He is God. It is his wish however that we kindle the fires of truth by spreading the message of the Gospel according to Luke 12:49.

Ant wrote:What ever happened to the old saying, "God helps those who help themselves".

Some people cannot help themselves for example, the developmentally handicapped.

Katabole wrote:According to Karl Marx, religion is like other social institutions in that it is dependent upon the material and economic realities in a given society. It has no independent history; instead it is the creature of productive forces. As Marx wrote, “The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.” According to Marx, religion can only be understood in relation to other social systems and the economic structures of society. In fact, religion is only dependent upon economics, nothing else — so much so that the actual religious doctrines are almost irrelevant. This is a functionalist interpretation of religion: understanding religion is dependent upon what social purpose religion itself serves, not the content of its beliefs. Marx’s opinion is that religion is an illusion that provides reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it is. Much as capitalism takes our productive labor and alienates us from its value, religion takes our highest ideals and aspirations and alienates us from them, projecting them onto an alien and unknowable being called a god.

Marx has three reasons for disliking religion. First, it is irrational — religion is a delusion and a worship of appearances that avoids recognizing underlying reality. Second, religion negates all that is dignified in a human being by rendering them servile and more amenable to accepting the status quo. In the preface to his doctoral dissertation, Marx adopted as his motto the words of the Greek hero Prometheus who defied the gods to bring fire to humanity: “I hate all gods,” with addition that they “do not recognize man’s self-consciousness as the highest divinity.” Third, religion is hypocritical. Although it might profess valuable principles, it sides with the oppressors. Jesus advocated helping the poor, but the Christian church merged with the oppressive Roman state, taking part in the enslavement of people for centuries. In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church preached about heaven, but acquired as much property and power as possible.

So, it seems that Marx never evaluated the truth claims of Christianity, he only condemned it (along with religion in general) based on the argument from evil and its variations. Maybe he concluded, based on the behaviour of the more powerful "believers", that they didn't believe what they preached themselves, so Christianity must be wrong, but I think it would have been more reasonable to see whether what this Jesus was saying makes any sense. If it really was as I assume, then stories about religion being the opium of the people are not in any way more legitimate than truth claims of Marx's image of religion, the very thing he criticizes - just-so stories that you should believe because a higher authority tells you to - at first this authority were those "enlightened" intellectuals, later it was a totalitarian regime that created a new religion, the cult of personality, so people, instead of worshipping an "imaginary" god, had to worship an earthly one, and risked getting a bullet in the back of their head for not doing so.

Now, from what I know about the 19th century, I could say that it was a nasty time period, full of blood, oppression, hypocrisy, colonisation, but what ensued after experimenting with materialist philosophy turned out to become even worse. So, I'm kind of surprised by the hypocrisy of those who still condemn religion, Christianity in particular, for the troubles of the modern day world. The Middle Ages are mentioned as "dark", which, I guess, should mean that our times are "light"? IMO, in a time period when slavery is illegal, yet there have never been more slaves, when millions of unborn humans are killed every year, when families fall apart like never before, when there are still "wars and rumours of wars" (less than two decades ago, one was fought on my soil, in the middle of Europe), one really has to be deluded or lying to say that we live in a tolerant, free or advanced world. The only advanced thing is technology, and it's a result of accumulated, shared knowledge, so we can't even claim that we're more intelligent than previous generations.

So, as a response to the OP's post, I have to agree with Silvertusk, Marcus, and Murray - Let's be realistic and realize that we can't build world peace by ourselves. We're much too rotten by sin.

Katabole wrote:

Ant wrote:The Antichrist would do the opposite

If you do a study on the word "Anti" as used in the Greek New Testament, you would understand that when the word is used in context with Satan, it doesn't mean opposite at all, it means 'instead of'.

Ant wrote:The Antichrist promotes hatred and greed and money based society.

True. But when the antichrist returns here he won't be doing that because he will never be believed. Satan uses deception more than any other method. Instead:

Dan 8:25 (KJV) And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

Ant wrote:Also, Carl Marx was recently honored by the Vatican for having the same goals as Jesus.

Would you please provide the link that claims that? I would like to read it.

According to Karl Marx, religion is like other social institutions in that it is dependent upon the material and economic realities in a given society. It has no independent history; instead it is the creature of productive forces. As Marx wrote, “The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.” According to Marx, religion can only be understood in relation to other social systems and the economic structures of society. In fact, religion is only dependent upon economics, nothing else — so much so that the actual religious doctrines are almost irrelevant. This is a functionalist interpretation of religion: understanding religion is dependent upon what social purpose religion itself serves, not the content of its beliefs. Marx’s opinion is that religion is an illusion that provides reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it is. Much as capitalism takes our productive labor and alienates us from its value, religion takes our highest ideals and aspirations and alienates us from them, projecting them onto an alien and unknowable being called a god.

Marx has three reasons for disliking religion. First, it is irrational — religion is a delusion and a worship of appearances that avoids recognizing underlying reality. Second, religion negates all that is dignified in a human being by rendering them servile and more amenable to accepting the status quo. In the preface to his doctoral dissertation, Marx adopted as his motto the words of the Greek hero Prometheus who defied the gods to bring fire to humanity: “I hate all gods,” with addition that they “do not recognize man’s self-consciousness as the highest divinity.” Third, religion is hypocritical. Although it might profess valuable principles, it sides with the oppressors. Jesus advocated helping the poor, but the Christian church merged with the oppressive Roman state, taking part in the enslavement of people for centuries. In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church preached about heaven, but acquired as much property and power as possible.

Martin Luther preached the ability of each individual to interpret the Bible, but sided with aristocratic rulers and against peasants who fought against economic and social oppression. According to Marx, Protestantism, was a production of new economic forces as early capitalism developed. New economic realities required a new religious superstructure by which it could be justified and defended.

Marx’s most famous statement about religion comes from a critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law:

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion (Christianity specifically), is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."

Marx is saying that religion is meant to create illusory fantasies for the poor. Economic realities prevent them from finding true happiness in this life, so religion tells them this is OK because they will find true happiness in the next life. Marx is not entirely without sympathy: people are in distress and religion does provide solace, just as people who are physically injured receive relief from opiate-based drugs. The problem is that opiates fail to fix a physical injury — you only forget your pain and suffering. This can be fine, but only if you are also trying to solve the underlying causes of the pain. Similarly, religion does not fix the underlying causes of people’s pain and suffering — instead, it helps them forget why they are suffering and causes them to look forward to an imaginary future when the pain will cease instead of working to change circumstances now. Even worse, this “drug” is being administered by the oppressors who are responsible for the pain and suffering. Marx did not make religion the primary enemy of workers and communists. Had Marx regarded religion as a more serious enemy, he would have devoted more time to it.

Ant wrote:Jesus is alive now, and could be anyone.

It seems you are insinuating that Christ is alive on Earth presently? and/or has taken human form again? According to Acts ch 1, Jesus ascended into the heavenly dimension to sit at the right hand of the Father and according to Psalm 110, Jesus sits at the right hand of God until all His enemies are here on Earth. Satan is God's enemy, therefore Jesus cannot return here until Satan in his role as antichrist, is here first.

Ant wrote:Jesus is a title which means "God's saviour" or the person God will send to save mankind.

Well God already sent Him 2000 years ago to save mankind. The second coming of Christ will not be like the first. Christ is not returning here as a babe to be crucified but as the King of kings and Lord of lords to pour out God's wrath and redeem believers.

Ant wrote:Did you ever think that just maybe, saving mankind is an awfully big task, and just maybe that person might need some help?

Jesus does not need any help saving mankind, since He is God. It is his wish however that we kindle the fires of truth by spreading the message of the Gospel according to Luke 12:49.

Ant wrote:What ever happened to the old saying, "God helps those who help themselves".

Some people cannot help themselves for example, the developmentally handicapped.

Completely agree with everything you said - good post!!

Silvertusk

Reactionary wrote:So, it seems that Marx never evaluated the truth claims of Christianity, he only condemned it (along with religion in general) based on the argument from evil and its variations. Maybe he concluded, based on the behaviour of the more powerful "believers", that they didn't believe what they preached themselves, so Christianity must be wrong, but I think it would have been more reasonable to see whether what this Jesus was saying makes any sense. If it really was as I assume, then stories about religion being the opium of the people are not in any way more legitimate than truth claims of Marx's image of religion, the very thing he criticizes - just-so stories that you should believe because a higher authority tells you to - at first this authority were those "enlightened" intellectuals, later it was a totalitarian regime that created a new religion, the cult of personality, so people, instead of worshipping an "imaginary" god, had to worship an earthly one, and risked getting a bullet in the back of their head for not doing so.

Now, from what I know about the 19th century, I could say that it was a nasty time period, full of blood, oppression, hypocrisy, colonisation, but what ensued after experimenting with materialist philosophy turned out to become even worse. So, I'm kind of surprised by the hypocrisy of those who still condemn religion, Christianity in particular, for the troubles of the modern day world. The Middle Ages are mentioned as "dark", which, I guess, should mean that our times are "light"? IMO, in a time period when slavery is illegal, yet there have never been more slaves, when millions of unborn humans are killed every year, when families fall apart like never before, when there are still "wars and rumours of wars" (less than two decades ago, one was fought on my soil, in the middle of Europe), one really has to be deluded or lying to say that we live in a tolerant, free or advanced world. The only advanced thing is technology, and it's a result of accumulated, shared knowledge, so we can't even claim that we're more intelligent than previous generations.

So, as a response to the OP's post, I have to agree with Silvertusk, Marcus, and Murray - Let's be realistic and realize that we can't build world peace by ourselves. We're much too rotten by sin.

Well said Reactionary

I've read only a very small amount of what Carl Marx wrote, but I'd have to say he's fairly close on religion. Not God's true religion, but on man's religion. Almost everyone in the world worships man's religions, which are twisted and construed by man's greed, hatred, and all sorts of other human things. Man's religions are used to give power to the kings, dictators, and presidents, and to make money.

You could have easily searched for this yourself, but here it is.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 884704.ece
http://rt.com/news/vatican-smiles-karl-marx/

If you really look, you'll find the Bible often disagrees with itself. Even the words of Jesus disagree with themselves. Jesus said there'd be no sign, and I take that to mean no descending from Heaven, and no coming back to life after 2000 years. I believe in science and in God.

I've often thought about why Jesus said there'd be no signs or wonders, and what I come up with, is that signs and wonders would attract the wrong people. You can get bad people to do good, by offering them a reward, but they are still bad people. I think the same is true of the words in the Bible. I think there are things in there which are intended to be an excuse, to allow people to justify their actions, so that only the good people are saved.

Many people tell me that shared income society won't work, 'cause people are to greedy or lazy or only care about themselves or whatever. Maybe that is true, and God simply plans to filter out the people, and take only those who would be good in a shared income society. Maybe God is simply waiting for the right moment, just before nuclear war, to draw in the good people and leave the rest to destroy themselves.

Tony

Ant, when you posted the comment,

Ant wrote:Also, Carl Marx was recently honored by the Vatican for having the same goals as Jesus.

I actually thought you were joking. Then when you provided the link, I was taken aback. I'm not a Catholic but I"m sure many Catholics do not appreciate this provocative action. Your article said:

"Two years ago Benedict XVI singled out Marxism as one of the great scourges of the modern age. “The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful destruction of the human spirit,” he told an audience in Brazil."

Maybe some of the Catholics on the board can comment as to why the stance has changed on Marx because in my opinion and as my earlier post declared, Marx was no friend of Christianity. Marxistdarwinianism has been Christianity's bane over the last 150 years.

What it does remind me of though, is the change in Christian church doctrine from teaching Biblical truths to accepting worldism, similar to the criticism of the Nicolaitans in Rev by God. From the NIV notes on the Nicolaitans, "They'd apparently reached a compromise with pagan society and began to preach that spiritual liberty gave them license to practice idolatry and adultery."

I'm rarely critical of my faith but when I do criticize it, I believe the criticism is valid and warranted. I live in Canada. From the end of WW II to the end of the 1960's, the United and Anglican churches built just over 6000 churches here nationwide. If you ever visit Canada and travel the country, you'll notice a Christian church building in literally every town. Through the 1970's church populations in these denominations began to wane. So church leadership decided that instead of teaching Biblical precepts, they would appeal to worldism to increase the level of their congregations. The result is that the United Church and Anglican Church have literally collapsed here. The heirarchy that runs these denominations began to sell the land and church buildings they owned in the early 80's and it has continued steadily. Notwithstanding, non-denominational, Bible teaching churches have waxed stronger instead of waning and I believe it is because they resort to teaching the Bible and not appealing to naturalistic worldviews, such as Marxism. However, it's just part of the bigger picture of the famine of the end times: Amos 8:11 (KJV) Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

Ant wrote:

The person you describe in your post is in Revelations and that is the Antichrist.

Jesus' Apostles created a commune, and they were the experts on Jesus. Also, Carl Marx was recently honored by the Vatican for having the same goals as Jesus.

The Antichrist would do the opposite. The Antichrist does the opposite of Jesus in pretty much every way. The Antichrist promotes hatred and greed and money based society.

World peace will never occur until the day jesus comes and rules.

You seem to miss the point. Jesus is alive now, and could be anyone. Jesus is a title which means "God's saviour" or the person God will send to save mankind. I'm saying you can find him with a simple search of the Internet.

You are supposed to be on the look out. Does God or Jesus have to do everything for you? Did you ever think that just maybe, saving mankind is an awfully big task, and just maybe that person might need some help? What ever happened to the old saying, "God helps those who help themselves".

Tony

Karl Marx and Communism as well as progressivism teaches that it is the State one must give too in order for the state to give to the Poor.

Jesus Christ did not teach this nor does the bible. The bible and Christ taught that it was for individuals to give to other individuals and also to the Assembly of Believers as well so the needs can be discerned and goods distributed thru discerned need (Don’t work, don’t eat 2 Th 3:10). IT IS NOT THE STATE role to be the giver of handouts.

The Maximum of Communist, neo Marxism, and progressive socialism is to make your opponent live to their own standards in order to overthrow them – exhaust them. However Leftist do not live up to their own standards because the ends justify the means and the ends is POWER and CONTROL.

In Fact, Jesus confronted one of the first Progressive leftist in the bible: and Luke 18:18-23 contains the discourse:

"Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
You know the commandments: 'DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,' 'DO NOT MURDER,' 'DO NOT STEAL,' 'DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS,' 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER.' "

And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth." So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when he heard this, he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich." NKJV Luke 18:18, 19, 21, 22, 23c

This person was one – a ruler and very rich.

When the bible speaks of bad rich people exploiting the poor – it is referring to the Rulers who are rich a powerful – not all the wealthy but a certain type of person who is politically connected and very wealthy who uses the backs of the poor to stay in power. In other words, progressives like you Ant are being exploited to keep the politically powerful rich in power. They care nothing for you, you’re a pawn, a tool, a dupe to them.

Hard fact, in the USA the 1960-current trend for LBJ’s Great Society welfare programs have not ease black or minority poverty very much - Only 2 percent after how many years?

What it did was gained a voting block of people that could be easily frighten with scare tactics that their political opposition wants to take the measly benefits they receive away, every voting year, decade after decade, so they rich rulers remain in power. That is exploitation plain and simple and the bible deplores this. The main goal of social justice for the progressives is POWER and EXPLOITATION of the poor (i.e. masses) in the most-vile manner.

So Ant – as Jesus said to the rich and powerful ruler, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” He is referring to the politically powerful rich – not all people who have wealth.

Jesus did not teach – steal, rob, and destroy but the progressive left sure does.

What this shows, is that there is a true thing as a sin nature and is why progressivism will always fail. Why there is wars, crime, bitterness, broken homes, addictions. You cite, like all atheist, if only but God would stop this then that would prove...

Well he did, and did so justly, rightly and fairly, through what Jesus Christ did upon the cross and his resurrection. He even left the ability to decide up to the individual to reject his help or accept his cure. Yes, and despite foreknowing the final answers of those that reject – he lets them freely reject and warns them of the consequence for their own rejecting. How fair is that?

Ant - Tony - please take the time to read Matthew chapters 26 beginning in verse 47 all thru chapters 27 and 28 and ask yourself – have you not put Christ of the cross mocked him, spat on him, put him on trial, like to beat him, scorn him, demand of him to act for you a certain way? That is our sin nature, Tony. You exposed yours here amply.
-
-
-

Hi everyone. I believe God's purpose is to create a new form of society which will end poverty, global warming and over use of resources, and bring World Peace and save mankind from Nuclear War. World Peace is mentioned in the Bible, and instructions are given on how to obtain it.

Luk 2:13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Luk 2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.


Isa 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.


John Lennon sang a song "Imagine" which told us about a new form of society which is believed by many to be able to bring World Peace. Here's some key statements from that song: "Imagine all the people, living life in peace", "the world will be as one", "Imagine no possessions", "no need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man", "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world".

Christ's Apostles attempted to create such a society, in the Book of Acts. It was not planned that they would be successful at that time though.

Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,


Act 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.


Compare that to John Lennon's song Imagine. The "were of one heart and of one soul" or "singleness of heart" = "the World will be as one", and "all things in common" = "sharing all the world" or "Imagine no possessions".

Isa 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Isa 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.


The "root of Jesse" is Jesus, so it is saying here that Jesus would be an ensign or like a flag to the non-jews, so that they'd form a new religion. The verse after that suggests that God will send someone after Jesus. That is the person who'll bring World Peace.

I believe this new society must be setup and will be setup in the next few years, therefore this person is already alive today. I invite you to search the Internet for anyone who might be capable of doing the job, who God might appoint to the task. Odds are, that person can be found by searching the net. It only takes a day to do a pretty vast search of the Internet.

I am one of many people trying to form a new society, and I've searched and found most of the others. Most of them are atheists, which doesn't totally rule them out, but makes them less likely. Most of them are also arrogant, "my way or the highway" which I'd say does totally rule them out, as God would seek someone "meek" and able to hear the still small voice of God.

If you are going to search though, I advice you keep a very open mind. That person will not have the same religious beliefs as you. The religions of man have always been strongly influenced by man. This person will have gotten his religion from God. He may form a new religion.

Also, don't go by popularity or wealth or any other means. Popularity is simply an indication of what people think is capable of doing the job. God does not choose based on such factors. God can take a very poor and unpopular person and make him change the world.

The name Jesus actually is the same as Joshua, and it means God's savior (among other similar things), so there is no reason to believe this person will be named Jesus. That name is like a title which would automatically apply to whoever God chooses to save mankind, no matter what his parents named him.

So why not spend some time looking for such a person? You could search for "save mankind" or "end poverty" or "World Peace" or "new form of society" or something like that. As Jesus said, " seek, and ye shall find".

Tony

Hey, Tony

Sorry but about all of this, I think this is just freedom extracting the the biblical prophecies out of context + some wishful thinking. Not to burst your bubble but such ideas usually lead to cults, beware the path you tread and look if it is according to the scriptures and the message of the Gospel. I am afraid you are thinking along a line which is against the basic biblical teachings.

And you might wanna know that Charles Manson thought that the Beatles were prophets, telling how the world will end through Helter Skeltor, so placing your ideas on a John Lennon song will give you as much authentication as old charlie had.